Stimulus-outcome associations are required for the expression of specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.

A series of experiments employed a specific Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) task in rats to determine the capacity of various treatments to undermine two outcome-specific stimulus-outcome (S-O) associations. Experiment 1 tested a random treatment, which involved uncorrelated presentations of the two stimuli and their predicted outcomes. This treatment disrupted the capacity of the outcome-specific S-O associations to drive specific PIT. Experiment 2 used a negative-contingency treatment during which the predicted outcomes were exclusively delivered in the absence of their associated stimulus. This treatment spared specific PIT, suggesting that it left the outcome-specific S-O associations relatively intact. The same outcome was obtained in Experiment 3, which implemented a zero-contingency treatment consisting of delivering the predicted outcomes in the presence and absence of their associated stimulus. Experiment 4 tested a mixed treatment, which distributed the predicted outcomes at an equal rate during each stimulus. This treatment disrupted the capacity of the outcome-specific S-O associations to drive specific PIT. We suggest that the mixed treatment disrupted specific PIT by generating new and competing outcome-specific S-O associations. By contrast, we propose that the random treatment disrupted specific PIT by undermining the original outcome-specific S-O associations, indicating that these associations must be retrieved to express specific PIT. We discuss how these findings inform our theoretical understanding of the mechanisms underlying this phenomenon. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).