Learning
Can a reminder of extinction stop old learning coming back?
Open access · cc by · source: Europe PMC
Showing people a cue from the extinction phase stopped a previously extinguished expectation from returning in a new context, while a cue from original learning let it return.
Study at a glance
- Design
- Human experiment — Two computer-based experiments with an ABC renewal design (acquisition in restaurant A, extinction in restaurant B, test in B and novel restaurant C); participants were randomly split into groups tested in C with either the acquisition reminder cue or the extinction reminder cue; Experiment II equated how often each cue was followed by the outcome.
- N
- Experiment I analysed 46 students (19 more excluded for poor learning); Experiment II analysed 58 students (21 more excluded). Each experiment had two groups; no pooled N is reported.
- Population
- University students at Philipps-Universität Marburg, Germany
- Outcome
- Percentage of 'stomach trouble' predictions to the target food in the extinction context versus a novel context at test (renewal), by reminder-cue group
Structured fields used in claim comparison tables when every cited study has a complete layer.
Key findings
In both experiments, the group tested with the acquisition cue predicted stomach trouble more in the new restaurant than in the extinction restaurant (renewal), whereas the group tested with the extinction cue showed no such return. The Context by Group interaction was large in Experiment I (partial eta squared 0.336) and smaller but still significant in Experiment II (0.178). Because the effect survived when the two cues had identical outcome histories, the cues seem to act by retrieving the whole learned episode rather than through their own direct link to the outcome.
Methodology
Students played a doctor predicting whether a patient would get stomach trouble after eating foods in different restaurants. A target food first caused trouble in one restaurant (acquisition, usually preceded by a picture of wine or coffee), then stopped causing trouble in a second restaurant (extinction, preceded by the other picture). At test, the food was shown without feedback in the extinction restaurant and in a new third restaurant, where one group saw the acquisition picture and the other saw the extinction picture. Experiment II repeated this but made each picture predict the outcome on half of its trials, so neither cue had its own link to stomach trouble.
Limitations
There was no group tested without any reminder cue, so the study cannot tell whether the acquisition cue boosted renewal, the extinction cue suppressed it, or both; the authors say this must be tested directly. Many participants were excluded for failing to learn (19 in Experiment I and 21 in Experiment II), and samples were small student groups doing a short, low-stakes imagined medical task, so generalising to fear or to relapse in therapy is an extrapolation. The authors also note that a configural-learning account fits the data as well as their occasion-setting account, and that the cross-experiment comparison suggesting some direct cue-outcome learning should be treated with caution.
How this study connects
Role on claims
Each row is a claim on a concept or method page where this paper supports, challenges, or qualifies the statement. Roles are hand-checked — not a model guess.
Not yet placed on a claim. This paper has study layers, but no concept page yet cites it as support, challenge, or qualifier.
Related papers in this topic
Same topic cluster — not a recommendation engine.
- Does choosing when to watch yourself help you learn a skill?
- Do we form habits from repetition or just our last action?
- Do food cues trigger actions more in obese than healthy-weight people?
- How do learning progress and novelty drive human curiosity?
- How does stress affect how we learn about safety and danger?