Predictability and controllability shape aversive learning and stress responses through independent computational mechanisms
Rajput, D.; Felmingham, K.; Sophie Lin, C.-H.; Garrido, M.
Show abstract
BACKGROUND: An individual's adaptation to threatening environments under uncertainty is reflected in stress responses. Predictability (the ability to anticipate events) and controllability (the ability to control outcomes) are central to how one adapts, yet their joint influence on aversive learning remains unclear. METHODS: Thirty healthy adults completed a probabilistic aversive learning task in which cue-outcome contingencies varied across levels of predictability and controllability, i.e. whether shock intensity depended on prediction accuracy. Prediction accuracy, reaction time, subjective stress ratings, and skin conductance responses were recorded throughout. Trial-wise learning dynamics were estimated using the Volatile Kalman Filter. RESULTS: Prediction accuracy reduced as environments became less predictable and negatively associated with higher learning rates across predictability levels, with the strongest relationship observed in highly predictable blocks. Skin conductance responses showed that moderately predictable environments elicited responses like those in highly predictable environments when accurate predictions reduced shock intensity, but resembled responses in unpredictable environments when shock intensity was uncontrollable. Model comparison revealed a double dissociation between subjective stress ratings and skin conductance responses. Subjective ratings were best explained by model-derived volatility when prediction accuracy determined shock intensity and by belief uncertainty when it was independent of prediction accuracy, whereas skin conductance responses showed the reverse pattern. Reaction times were best explained by belief uncertainty when predictions influenced shock intensity. Higher anxiety was associated with elevated learning rates in highly and moderately predictable blocks when predictions did not control shock intensity.
Matching journals
The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- A hierarchical Bayesian model reveals increased precision weighting for afferent cardiac signals, and reduced anxiety, as a function of interoceptive training 93%
- Behavioural and neural limits in competitive decision making: The roles of outcome, opponency and observation 92%
- Dissociating the effect of reward uncertainty and timing uncertainty on neural indices of reward prediction errors: A reward positivity (RewP) event-related potential (ERP) study 89%
Similar papers in this journal
- Dual process impairments in reinforcement learning and working memory systems underlie learning deficits in physiological anxiety 92%
- Exploratory noise governs both flexibility and spontaneous errors and is regulated by cocaine 91%
- Uncertainty-driven regulation of learning and exploration in adolescents: A computational account 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Defensive freezing and its relation to approach-avoidance decision-making under threat 94%
- Self-beneficial belief updating as a coping mechanism for stress-induced negative affect 93%
- I judge you by your profit: Judgments of effort exerted by selfand others are influenced by task contingent rewards 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.