Methylphenidate enhances extinction of contextual fear

Methylphenidate (MPH, Ritalin) is a norepinephrine and dopamine transporter blocker that is widely used in humans for treatment of attention deficit disorder and narcolepsy. Although there is some evidence that targeted microinjections of MPH may enhance fear acquisition, little is known about the effect of MPH on fear extinction. Here, we show that MPH, administered before or immediately following extinction of contextual fear, will enhance extinction retention in C57BL/6 mice. Animals that received MPH (2.5-10 mg/kg) before an extinction session showed decreased freezing response during extinction, and the effect of the 10 mg/kg dose on freezing persisted to the next day. When MPH (2.5-40 mg/kg) was administered immediately following an extinction session, mice that received MPH showed dose-dependent decreases in freezing during subsequent tests. MPH administered immediately after a 3-min extinction session or 4 h following the first extinction session did not cause significant differences in freezing. Together, these findings demonstrate that MPH can enhance extinction of fear and that this effect is sensitive to dose, time of injection, and duration of the extinction session. Because MPH is widely used in clinical treatments, these experiments suggest that the drug could be used in combination with behavioral therapies for patients with fear disorders.     

Differential reinstatement predicted by preextinction response rate

Reinstatement refers to the recovery of previously extinguished responding by the responseindependent delivery of a stimulus that was a reinforcer in training. Two experiments were conducted to examine relative reinstatement following the training of differential preextinction response rates, either with equal (Experiment 1) or unequal (Experiment 2) preextinction reinforcement rates. In Experiment 1, each of 3 pigeons first pecked at relatively high rates in the tandem variable-time 117-sec fixed-interval 3-sec component of a multiple schedule and at lower rates in a separate tandem variableinterval 117-sec fixed-time 3-sec component. Reinforcement rates were equal between components. Pecking then was extinguished in each component, before being reinstated under a multiple variabletime 120-sec variable-time 120-sec schedule. Greater reinstatement occurred in the component previously correlated with higher rates of pecking. In Experiment 2, in an initial condition, the mean rate of lever pressing for one group of 8 rats was significantly higher under a fixed-ratio 3 schedule than for another group of 8 rats under a fixed-ratio 1 schedule. Mean reinforcement rate was significantly higher for the group exposed to the fixed-ratio 1 schedule. For each group, lever pressing then was extinguished, before being reinstated under a variable-time 30-sec schedule. Significantly greater mean reinstatement occurred for the group previously exposed to the fixed-ratio 3 schedule. These results suggest that differential reinstatement may be predicted by preextinction response rate, perhaps independently of preextinction reinforcement rate.     

Choice, changing over, and reinforcement delays

In three experiments, pigeons were used to examine the independent effects of two normally confounded delays to reinforcement associated with changing between concurrently available variable-interval schedules of reinforcement. In Experiments 1 and 2, combinations of changeover-delay durations and fixed-interval travel requirements were arranged in a changeover-key procedure. The delay from a changeover-produced stimulus change to a reinforcer was varied while the delay between the last response on one alternative and a reinforcer on the other (the total obtained delay) was held constant. Changeover rates decreased as a negative power function of the total obtained delay. The delay between a changeover-produced stimulus change had a small and inconsistent effect on changeover rates. In Experiment 3, changeover delays and fixed-interval travel requirements were arranged independently. Changeover rates decreased as a negative power function of the total obtained delay despite variations in the delay from a change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer. Periods of high-rate responding following a changeover, however, were higher near the end of the delay from a change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer. The results of these experiments suggest that the effects of changeover delays and travel requirements primarily result from changes in the delay between a response at one alternative and a reinforcer at the other, but the pattern of responding immediately after a changeover depends on the delay from a changeover-produced change in stimulus conditions to a reinforcer.     

Behavioral control by the response–reinforcer correlation

Using a discrete‐trials procedure, two experiments examined the effects of response–reinforcer correlations on responding while controlling molecular variables that operated at the moment of reinforcer delivery (e.g., response–reinforcer temporal contiguity, interresponse times preceding reinforcement). Each trial consisted of three successive components: Response, Timeout, and Reinforcement, with the duration of each component held constant. The correlation between the number of responses in the Response component and reinforcer deliveries in the Reinforcement component was varied. In the Positive‐correlation condition, a larger number of responses in the Response component programmed a higher reinforcement rate (Experiment 1) or a shorter time to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component. Although programmed in this way, the actual reinforcer delivery was dependent on, and occurred immediately after, a response in the Reinforcement component. In the Zero‐correlation condition, the programmed rates of reinforcement (Experiment 1) or the times to reinforcement (Experiment 2) in the Reinforcement component of each trial were yoked to those in the preceding Positive‐correlation condition. Responding in the Response component was higher in the Positive‐ than in the Zero‐correlation condition, without systematic changes in molecular variables. The results suggest that the response–reinforcer correlation can be a controlling variable of behavior.     

The control response in assessing resurgence: Useful or compromised tool?

Resurgence experiments sometimes include an operandum on which a history of reinforcement has not been experimentally established. The purpose of this control operandum is to rule out a generalized increase in responding when the alternative response is extinguished as being the cause of the resurgent target response. A review of the results of experiments conducted with both nonhumans and humans in which a control operandum was included shows that control- operandum responding is more common in the latter and almost nonexistent in the former. Both the presence and absence of responding on the control operandum, however, are subject to multiple interpretations thereby rendering it a compromised tool. Alternatives to using a control operandum to rule out extinction induction as the basis for resurgence include a preresurgence test control procedure and a differential resurgence procedure.