Following cue-outcome (X-O) pairings, 2 procedures that reduce conditioned responses to X are extinction, in which X is presented by itself, and counterconditioning, in which X is paired with a different outcome typically of valence opposite that of training. Although studies with animals have generally found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction in reducing responding, data from humans are less clear. They suggest counterconditioning is more efficient than extinction at interfering with emotional processing, but there is little difference between the two procedures regarding their impact on the verbal assessment of the probability of the outcome given the cue. However, issues of statistical power leave conclusions ambiguous. We compared counterconditioning and extinction in highly powered experiments that exploited a novel procedure. A rapid streamed-trial procedure was used in which participants were asked to rate how likely a target outcome was to accompany a target cue after being exposed to acquisition trials followed by extinction, counterconditioning, or neither. In Experiments 1 and 2, evaluative conditioning was assessed by asking participants to rate the pleasantness of the cues after treatment. These studies found counterconditioning more efficient than extinction at reducing evaluative conditioning but less efficient at decreasing the assessment of the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. The latter effect was replicated with neutral outcomes in Experiments 3 and 4, but the effect was inverted in Experiment 4 in conditions designed to preclude reinstatement of initial training by the question probing the conditional probability of the outcome given the cue. Effect sizes were small (Cohen's d of 0.2 for effect on evaluative conditioning, Cohen's d of 0.3 for effect on the outcome expectancy). If representative, this poses a serious constraint in terms of statistical power for further investigations of differential efficiency of extinction and counterconditioning in humans. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

中文翻译：

---

追溯性干扰：无论有无生物学意义的结果，反调节和灭绝。

在提示结果 (XO) 配对之后，减少对 X 的条件反应的 2 个程序是灭绝，其中 X 由自身呈现，以及反条件，其中 X 与通常与训练相反的价态的不同结果配对。尽管对动物的研究普遍发现，在减少反应方面，反调节比灭绝更有效，但来自人类的数据不太清楚。他们认为，在干扰情绪处理方面，反调节比灭绝更有效，但在对给定线索的结果概率的口头评估的影响方面，这两种程序之间几乎没有区别。然而，统计能力的问题使结论模棱两可。我们在利用新程序的高功率实验中比较了反调节和灭绝。使用快速流式试验程序，参与者被要求评估目标结果在暴露于获取试验后伴随目标线索的可能性有多大，随后灭绝、反条件化或两者都没有。在实验 1 和 2 中，通过要求参与者对治疗后线索的愉悦度进行评估来评估评价性条件反射。这些研究发现，在减少评估性条件反射方面，反条件化比灭绝更有效，但在减少对给定线索的结果的条件概率的评估方面效率较低。后一种效果在实验 3 和 4 中以中性结果复制，但在实验 4 中，在旨在通过问题探查给定提示的结果的条件概率来排除恢复初始训练的条件下，效果被颠倒了。影响大小很小（Cohen's d 为 0.2 对评价性条件反射的影响，Cohen's d 为 0.3 对结果预期的影响）。如果具有代表性，这对进一步研究人类灭绝和反调节的差异效率的统计能力构成了严重的限制。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。这对进一步研究人类灭绝和反调节的差异效率的统计能力造成了严重的限制。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。这对进一步研究人类灭绝和反调节的差异效率的统计能力造成了严重的限制。（PsycInfo 数据库记录 (c) 2020 APA，保留所有权利）。