↓ Skip to main content

Appetitive vs. Aversive conditioning in humans

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Readers on

mendeley
168 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Appetitive vs. Aversive conditioning in humans
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00128
Pubmed ID
Authors

Marta Andreatta, Paul Pauli

Abstract

In classical conditioning, an initially neutral stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) becomes associated with a biologically salient event (unconditioned stimulus, US), which might be pain (aversive conditioning) or food (appetitive conditioning). After a few associations, the CS is able to initiate either defensive or consummatory responses, respectively. Contrary to aversive conditioning, appetitive conditioning is rarely investigated in humans, although its importance for normal and pathological behaviors (e.g., obesity, addiction) is undeniable. The present study intents to translate animal findings on appetitive conditioning to humans using food as an US. Thirty-three participants were investigated between 8 and 10 am without breakfast in order to assure that they felt hungry. During two acquisition phases, one geometrical shape (avCS+) predicted an aversive US (painful electric shock), another shape (appCS+) predicted an appetitive US (chocolate or salty pretzel according to the participants' preference), and a third shape (CS-) predicted neither US. In a extinction phase, these three shapes plus a novel shape (NEW) were presented again without US delivery. Valence and arousal ratings as well as startle and skin conductance (SCR) responses were collected as learning indices. We found successful aversive and appetitive conditioning. On the one hand, the avCS+ was rated as more negative and more arousing than the CS- and induced startle potentiation and enhanced SCR. On the other hand, the appCS+ was rated more positive than the CS- and induced startle attenuation and larger SCR. In summary, we successfully confirmed animal findings in (hungry) humans by demonstrating appetitive learning and normal aversive learning.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 168 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 1 <1%
Unknown 167 99%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Bachelor 30 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 17%
Researcher 22 13%
Student > Master 19 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 10 6%
Other 21 13%
Unknown 37 22%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 60 36%
Neuroscience 26 15%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 7 4%
Engineering 3 2%
Other 13 8%
Unknown 51 30%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 24 June 2018.
All research outputs
#13,434,323
of 22,803,211 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#1,626
of 3,165 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#126,790
of 266,320 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#44
of 84 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,803,211 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,165 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 46th percentile – i.e., 46% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 266,320 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 84 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.