Context-induced renewal of passive but not active coping behaviours in the shock-probe defensive burying task
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Renewal is the return of extinguished responding after removal from the extinction context. Renewal has been extensively studied using classical aversive conditioning procedures that measure a passive freezing response to an aversive conditioned stimulus. However, coping responses to aversive stimuli are complex and can be reflected in passive and active behaviours. Using the shock-probe defensive burying task, we investigated whether different coping responses are susceptible to renewal. During conditioning, male, Long-Evans rats were placed into a specific context (context A) where an electrified shock-probe delivered a 3 mA shock upon contact. During extinction, the shock-probe was unarmed in either the same (context A) or a different context (context B). Renewal of conditioned responses was assessed in the conditioning context (ABA) or in a novel context (ABC or AAB). Renewal of passive coping responses, indicated by an increased latency and a decreased duration of shock-probe contacts, was observed in all groups. However, renewal of passive coping, measured by increased time spent on the side of the chamber opposite the shock-probe, was only found in the ABA group. Renewal of active coping responses linked to defensive burying was not observed in any group. The present findings highlight the presence of multiple psychological processes underlying even basic forms of aversive conditioning and demonstrate the importance of assessing a broader set of behaviours to tease apart these different underlying mechanisms. The current findings suggest that passive coping responses may be more reliable indicators for assessing renewal than active coping behaviours associated with defensive burying.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".