scholarly journals The US-Preexposure Effect in Lithium-Induced Flavor-Aversion Conditioning Is a Consequence of Blocking by Injection Cues.

Author(s):  
Isabel de Brugada ◽  
Geoffrey Hall ◽  
Michelle Symonds
1989 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 611-614 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Charles F. Hinderliter

Theory and research suggest that long delay taste-aversion conditioning should be less affected by proximal US preexposure than short-delay conditioning The present research tested this hypothesis by administering illness-inducing LiCl shortly before a saccharin-LiCl pairing in which the postsaccharin LiCl was administered either immediately or 20 min. after access to saccharin. The results suggest that US preexposure has a more deleterious effect on conditioning when the illness-inducing US is delayed in conditioning than when it is immediate. These results are to be expected on the basis of classical conditioning principles and question theory and research that suggest more deleterious effects of US preexposure with shorter intervals between the preexposed and conditioning US.


Author(s):  
Unai Liberal ◽  
Gabriel Rodríguez ◽  
Geoffrey Hall

AbstractIn Experiment 1, rats received 16 nonreinforced trials of exposure to a flavor (A) that was subsequently used as the conditioned stimulus in flavor-aversion conditioning. In the critical condition, Flavor A was presented in compound with a different novel flavor on each of the eight daily trials. This treatment produced latent inhibition, in that this preexposure retarded conditioning just as did 16 trials with A alone. Rats in the control conditions, given no preexposure or exposure just to the sequence of novel flavors, learned readily. Experiment 2 examined the effects of these forms of preexposure on performance on a summation test, in which Flavor A was presented in compound with a separately conditioned flavor (X). The preexposure procedure in which A was presented along with novel flavors rendered A effective in inhibiting the response conditioned to X on that test. The conclusion, that this form of training can establish the target stimulus as a conditioned inhibitor, is predicted by the account of latent inhibition put forward by Hall and Rodríguez (2010) which proposes that the latent inhibition effect is a consequence both of a reduction in the associability of the stimulus and of a process of inhibitory associative learning that opposes the initial expectation that a novel event will be followed by some consequence.


1995 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 361-368 ◽  
Author(s):  
A. Espinet ◽  
J. A. Iraola ◽  
C. H. Bennett ◽  
N. J. Mackintosh

1997 ◽  
Vol 40 (1) ◽  
pp. 68-74
Author(s):  
Nobuyuki Nishida ◽  
Jackie D. Farmer ◽  
Prasada Rao S. Kodavanti ◽  
Hugh A. Tilson ◽  
Robert C. MacPhail

1988 ◽  
Vol 26 (1) ◽  
pp. 64-66 ◽  
Author(s):  
William A. Valliere ◽  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Charles F. Hinderliter

2005 ◽  
Vol 33 (3) ◽  
pp. 363-370 ◽  
Author(s):  
Isabel De Brugada ◽  
Felisa González ◽  
Marta Gil ◽  
Geoffrey Hall
Keyword(s):  

1993 ◽  
Vol 24 (4) ◽  
pp. 376-394 ◽  
Author(s):  
James S. Miller ◽  
Joyce A. Jagielo ◽  
Norman E. Spear

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document