Punishment insensitivity emerges from impaired contingency detection, not aversion insensitivity or reward dominance
- UNSW Sydney, Australia
- University of Technology Sydney, Australia
- St Vincent’s Centre for Applied Medical Research, Australia
Figures
Figure 1
Potential sources of punishment insensitivity.
Figure 2
Lever preference and conditioned suppression across conditioned punishment.
(A) Mean ± SEM preference ratios showing evidence for punishment. (B) Mean ± SEM suppression ratios showing evidence for fear. (C) Violin plots and individual subject preference ratios. (D) Violin …
Figure 3
Lever-press suppression across conditioned punishment.
(A) Mean ± SEM suppression ratios for responding on the punished (red) and unpunished (green) levers relative to training. *p<0.05 punished vs. unpunished. (B) Violin plots and individual subject …
Figure 4
Relationships between punishment, fear and reward.
(A) Correlation matrix for suppression ratios during CS+ presentations, punished lever, and unpunished lever across conditioned punishment sessions (1-6). (B) Multidimensional scaling showing …
Figure 5 with 2 supplements
Principal component and factor analysis of suppression during conditioned punishment.
(A) Loading heatmaps for principal component analysis of suppression ratios across conditioned punishment sessions (1-6). (B) Loading heatmaps for factor analysis of suppression ratios across …
Figure 5—figure supplement 1
Results of dimension reduction of suppression ratios.
(A) Scree plot of eigenvalues (black line, left axis) and cumulative variance accounted for by components (blue line, right axis). Four components/factors (dotted line) was deemed optimal. (B) …
Figure 5—figure supplement 2
Relationships between rates of pre-punishment lever-pressing (T), ITI rates of lever-pressing (Pun LP, Unp LP) across conditioned punishment, and conditioned suppression.
(A) Scree plot of eigenvalues (black line, left axis) and cumulative variance accounted for by components (blue line, right axis). Four components/factors (dotted line) was deemed optimal. (B) …
Figure 6 with 1 supplement
Behaviour of groups from 2-cluster solution.
(A) Mean ± SEM punished and unpunished lever suppression for punishment-sensitive (PunS; filled) and punishment-insensitive (PunIns; empty) groups from 2-cluster solution. (B) Mean ± SEM conditioned …
Figure 6—figure supplement 1
Other results of 2-cluster solution.
(A) Breakdown of cluster assignment across males and females. (B) Mean ± SEM lever-press rates during ITI for punishment-sensitive (filled symbol) and -insensitive (empty symbol) clusters. No …
Figure 7 with 1 supplement
Behaviour of groups from 3-cluster solution.
(A) Mean ± SEM punishment suppression and conditioned suppression for punishment-sensitive cluster. (B) Mean ± SEM punishment suppression and conditioned suppression for punishment-insensitive …
Figure 7—figure supplement 1
Other results of 3-cluster solution.
(A) Breakdown of cluster assignment across males and females. (B) Mean ± SEM lever-press rates during ITI for punishment-sensitive (filled symbol), -insensitive (empty symbol), and hyper-sensitive …
Tables
Table 1
Experimental design.
| Lever | End lever-press training | Conditioned punishment |
|---|---|---|
| Punished | Food (VI30s) | Food (VI30s) CS+ → Shock (VI60s) |
| Unpunished | Food (VI30s) | Food (VI30s) CS- (VI60s) |
-
CS+ and CS- were 10 s 3 kHz tone or 5 Hz flashing light, counterbalanced. CS+ co-terminated with shock (0.5 secs, 0.3–0.6mA).
