Habituation, Sensitization and Pavlovian conditioning

Abstract

In this brief review, I argue that the impact of a stimulus on behavioral control increase as the distance of the stimulus to the body decreases. Habituation, i.e., decrement in response intensity repetition of the triggering stimulus, is the default state for sensory processing, and the likelihood of habituation is higher for distal stimuli. Sensitization, i.e., increment in response intensity upon stimulus repetition, occurs in a state dependent manner for proximal stimuli that make direct contact with the body. In Pavlovian conditioning paradigms, the unconditioned stimulus (US) is always a more proximal stimulus than the conditioned stimulus (CS). The mechanisms of associative and non-associative learning are not independent. CS?US pairings lead to formation of associations if sensitizing modulation from a proximal US prevents the habituation for a distal anticipatory CS. Identification of the necessary and sufficient conditions for the formation of associations has been a driving influence on learning theory and research. In Pavlovian conditioning, a conditioned stimulus (CS) acquires the ability to trigger a new response by virtue of being paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US), which by definition is biologically important and capable of triggering an innate reflex. Starting with British associationism, early theories of conditioning were based on the premise that temporal contiguity was both necessary and sufficient for stimulus associations (Gormezano and Kehoe, 1981). Although the temporal coincidence of the CS?US pair is still accepted to be necessary, research since late 1960's presented irrevocable challenges to its sufficiency for the formation of associations (Durlach, 1989). Of particular importance was the discovery of blocking (Kamin, 1968), where an association fails to be formed in spite of the seamless temporal contiguity between the CS and the US, if the CS is presented in a compound with another CS that had previously been associated with the same US. Blocking had a major bearing on the development of the contingency theory of associative learning (Rescorla and Wagner, 1972), which has been a major breakthrough that diverted the focus of learning research from physical properties (e.g., intensity and temporal coincidence) to the signal value [e.g., predictiveness, informativeness, (un)expectedness] of the to-be-associated stimuli (Rescorla and Holland, 1988; Gallistel and Matzel, 2013). The signal value of a stimulus is correlated with its potential to support responsiveness, which for a given set of physical parameters depends largely on the history of non-associative learning, i.e., habituation and sensitization for the stimulus. Habituation refers to the reduction in the probability or amplitude of responding that is observed upon inconsequential stimulus repetition. For example, repeated delivery of an odor at constant inter-stimulus-intervals (ISI) would eventually lead to the habituation of the response that is initially triggered by the odor. I say eventually, because depending on the parameters of the stimulation protocol (e.g., odor concentration, frequency of odor presentation), a temporary increment in responsiveness might initially be observed. If, however, an appetitive gustatory stimulus (e.g., sugar) is repeated with the same ISI, depending again on the concentration of sugar, frequency of stimulation, and the physiological state of the organism, this protocol is likely to result in an increment in the probability of responding, i.e., sensitization. Finally if odor and sugar are paired instead of being presented separately, the standard paradigm for Pavlovian conditioning would ensue, where the two stimuli would now be termed conditioned (CS) and unconditioned stimuli (US), respectively. Hence, associative learning can be suggested to entail an evasion from habituation for the CS as it signals the arrival of a sensitizing event, the US, and a conditioned response (CR) would then be triggered during the CS in anticipation of the US. It follows that whether or not coincident pairings of the same CS and US will yield associative learning is influenced by the signal value, or equivalently, on the history of habituation and sensitization prior to conditioning. If, for example, a CS is repeatedly presented to yield habituation prior to conditioning, then its signal value would be reduced, which would in turn reduce subsequent associative learning relative to a control condition where the CS is presented de novo during Pavlovian pairings. Indeed, the strength of associations decreases if organisms are pre-exposed to the CS before conditioning (Reiss and Wagner, 1972; Hall, 2001). Similarly, efficacy of a US can be potentiated if conditioning is preceded by a sensitizing treatment (LoLordo and Randich, 1981), and vice versa (see Pearce and Hall, 1980; Franklin and Hall, 2011, for explanations based on context-conditioning during US preexposure). In the same vein, the failure of a US to support new associations under a blocking paradigm can be correlated with the reduction in sensitization (or the “surprise value” of the Rescorla-Wagner model) evoked by a signaled (as opposed to an unexpected) US, and indeed, US efficacy is known to decrease with extended associative training (Rescorla and Wagner, 1972). The suggestion that conditioning emerges as a sensitizing stimulus (US) exerts a modulatory influence to prevent the habituation for another stimulus (CS) begs the identification of stimulus characteristics that determine whether habituation or sensitization will occur upon repetition. So, are there any independent criteria for predicting a priori if a stimulus can incite sensitization or habituation, or equivalently, are there any inherent properties that assign a CS? or US-like function to a stimulus?