Contextual Control of Latent Inhibition by the Reinforcer

1996 ◽  
Vol 49 (1b) ◽  
pp. 45-59 ◽  
Author(s):  
Simon Killcross ◽  
Anthony Dickinson
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Latent Inhibition ◽  
Contextual Control ◽  
Conditioning Phase ◽  
Context Change ◽  
Inhibitory Conditioning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
Contextual Change ◽  
Conditioned Suppression Procedure

Three experiments examined the contextual control of latent inhibition (LI) by the unconditioned stimulus (US) using a within-subjects conditioned suppression procedure with rats. The effect of reducing the context change produced by the introduction of the shock US was investigated by presenting this US during preexposure to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Although limited CS preexposure in the absence of the US had no impact on subsequent conditioning, preexposure in the presence of the shock retarded both excitatory and inhibitory conditioning. We conclude that the introduction of the US during the conditioning phase of a normal LI experiment can produce a contextual change that reduces the observed magnitude of LI.

Attenuation of Latent Inhibition by Post-Acquisition Reminder

1984 ◽  
Vol 36 (1b) ◽  
pp. 53-63 ◽  
Author(s):  
Wesley J. Kasprow ◽  
Doreen Catterson ◽  
Todd R. Schachtman ◽  
Ralph R. Miller
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Retention Interval ◽  
White Noise ◽  
Latent Inhibition ◽  
Conditioning Phase ◽  
Retrieval Failure ◽  
Reminder Treatment ◽  
Lick Suppression ◽  
Treatment Shock

Using lick suppression by water-deprived rats as an associative index, white noise-footshock pairings resulted in less manifest conditioning when repeated non-reinforced presentations of the white noise preceded conditioning than when no stimulus pre-exposure was given, i.e., latent inhibition was observed. However, the latent inhibition deficit was reduced in animals who received as a reminder treatment shock-alone presentations in another context during the retention interval. Animals conditioned without prior stimulus pre-exposure and those exposed to the white noise and shock unpaired during the conditioning phase of the study showed no change in lick suppression as a result of the reminder treatment. These results suggest that the behavioural deficit produced by non-reinforced pre-exposure to the to-be-conditioned stimulus arises at least in part from a reversible retrieval failure rather than a lack of acquisition.

Unmasking latent inhibition in humans

2018 ◽  
Vol 71 (2) ◽  
pp. 380-395
Author(s):  
Daniel R. L. Forrest ◽  
Marius Mather ◽  
Justin A. Harris
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Latent Inhibition ◽  
Training Phase ◽  
The Novel ◽  
Subsequent Learning ◽  
The Us ◽  
Continuous Stream

Presentations of a to-be-conditioned stimulus (CS) on its own impairs subsequent learning when that CS is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Evidence for this latent inhibition (LI) effect in humans is said to require a “masking task” that diverts attention from the CS during preexposure. We present three experiments that demonstrate LI in humans without masking. Subjects performed a computerised task, making speeded responses to an imperative cue (the US) presented within a continuous stream of stimuli. During preexposure, a to-be-CS was presented 20 times among other stimuli, but excluding the US. Instructions ensured subjects actively monitored all stimuli at this time. This was immediately followed by the training phase, which included the US, the preexposed CS, and a novel CS. Both CSs were reliably followed by the US, but these associations were incidental to the instructed task. Nonetheless, some subjects learned the CS-US associations, responding faster when the US followed a CS than when it was unsignalled. All three experiments also found evidence for LI, in that subjects learned the novel CS-US association sooner than the preexposed CS-US association. We conclude that humans can show LI even when actively attending to the CS during preexposure.

Inhibition and Superconditioning

2002 ◽  
Vol 13 (5) ◽  
pp. 454-459 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ben A. Williams ◽  
Margaret A. McDevitt
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Conditioned Inhibitor ◽  
Autoshaping Procedure ◽  
The Us ◽  
Within Subjects

Superconditioning is said to occur when learning an association between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) is facilitated by pairing the CS with the US in the presence of a previously established conditioned inhibitor. Previous demonstrations of superconditioning have been criticized because their control conditions have allowed alternative interpretations. Using a within-subjects autoshaping procedure, the present study unambiguously demonstrated superconditioning. The results support the view that superconditioning is the symmetric opposite of blocking.

scholarly journals No Evaluative Conditioning Effects with Briefly Presented Stimuli

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Tobias Heycke ◽  
Christoph Stahl
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Visual Stimuli ◽  
Neutral Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Visual Modality ◽  
Contingency Awareness ◽  
The Us

Evaluative Conditioning (EC) changes the preference towards a formerly neutral stimulus (Conditioned Stimulus; CS), by pairing it with a valent stimulus (Unconditioned Stimulus; US), in the direction of the valence of the US. When the CS is presented subliminally (i.e., too briefly to be consciously perceived), contingency awareness between CS and US can be ruled out. Hence, EC effects with subliminal CSs would support theories claiming that contingency awareness is not necessary for EC effects to occur. Recent studies reported the absence of EC with briefly presented CSs when both CS and US were presented in the visual modality, even though the CSs were identified at above-chance levels. Challenging this finding, Heycke and colleagues (2017) found some evidence for an EC effect with briefly presented visual stimuli in a cross-modal paradigm with auditory USs, but that study did not assess CS visibility. The present study attempted to replicate this EC effect with different stimuli and a CS visibility check. Overall EC for briefly presented stimuli was absent, and results from the visibility check show that an EC effect with briefly presented CSs was only found, when the CSs were identified at above-chance levels.

scholarly journals Dopamine in nucleus accumbens: salience modulation in latent inhibition and overshadowing

2011 ◽  
Vol 25 (12) ◽  
pp. 1649-1660 ◽  
Author(s):  
AJD Nelson ◽  
KE Thur ◽  
CA Marsden ◽  
HJ Cassaday
Keyword(s):  
Nucleus Accumbens ◽  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Latent Inhibition ◽  
Relative Intensity ◽  
Emotional Response ◽  
Conditioned Emotional Response ◽  
Neural Substrates ◽  
6 Hydroxydopamine

Latent inhibition (LI) is demonstrated when non-reinforced pre-exposure to a to-be-conditioned stimulus retards later learning. Learning is similarly retarded in overshadowing, in this case using the relative intensity of competing cues to manipulate associability. Electrolytic/excitotoxic lesions to shell accumbens (NAc) and systemic amphetamine both reliably abolish LI. Here a conditioned emotional response procedure was used to demonstrate LI and overshadowing and to examine the role of dopamine (DA) within NAc. Experiment 1 showed that LI but not overshadowing was abolished by systemic amphetamine (1.0 mg/kg i.p.). In Experiment 2, 6-hydroxydopamine (6-OHDA) was used to lesion DA terminals within NAc: both shell- and core- (plus shell-)lesioned rats showed normal LI and overshadowing. Experiment 3 compared the effects of amphetamine microinjected at shell and core coordinates prior to conditioning: LI, but not overshadowing, was abolished by 10.0 but not 5.0 µg/side amphetamine injected in core but not shell NAc. These results suggest that the abolition of LI produced by NAc shell lesions is not readily reproduced by regionally restricted DA depletion within NAc; core rather than shell NAc mediates amphetamine-induced abolition of LI; overshadowing is modulated by different neural substrates.

Stimulus exposure effects in human associative learning

2000 ◽  
Vol 53 (2b) ◽  
pp. 173-187 ◽  
Author(s):  
Catherine E. Myers ◽  
Lindsay M. Oliver ◽  
Stacey G. Warren ◽  
Mark A. Gluck
Keyword(s):  
Associative Learning ◽  
Prior Exposure ◽  
Stimulus Exposure ◽  
Human Associative Learning ◽  
Exposure Effect ◽  
The Us ◽  
Within Subjects ◽  
Exposure Experiment ◽  
Computer Based

Learning that one cue (CS) predicts a second, salient cue (US) can often be slowed by prior exposure to one or both stimuli. In animals, CS-US learning is more strongly retarded following uncorrelated exposure to both CS and US than following exposure to the US alone. In this paper we present several studies showing a similar effect in humans, using a computer-based task. Experiments 1 and 2 used a between-groups design and demonstrated a strong CS/US exposure effect, whether or not the US was signalled by a neutral cue during exposure. Experiment 3 demonstrated similar effects using a within-subjects design. Overall, these results are consistent with several theoretical interpretations and suggest that uncorrelated CS/US exposure leads to a robust retardation of subsequent CS-US learning in humans.

Propositional Versus Dual-Process Accounts of Evaluative Conditioning

2016 ◽  
Vol 43 (1) ◽  
pp. 17-32 ◽  
Author(s):  
Xiaoqing Hu ◽  
Bertram Gawronski ◽  
Robert Balas
Keyword(s):  
Conditioned Stimulus ◽  
Unconditioned Stimulus ◽  
Evaluative Conditioning ◽  
Dual Process ◽  
Relational Information ◽  
The Us

Evaluative conditioning (EC) is defined as the change in the evaluation of a conditioned stimulus (CS) due to its pairing with a valenced unconditioned stimulus (US). According to propositional accounts, EC effects should be qualified by the relation between the CS and the US. Dual-process accounts suggest that relational information should qualify EC effects on explicit evaluations, whereas implicit evaluations should reflect the frequency of CS–US co-occurrences. Experiments 1 and 2 showed that, when relational information was provided before the encoding of CS–US pairings, it moderated EC effects on explicit, but not implicit, evaluations. In Experiment 3, relational information moderated EC effects on both explicit and implicit evaluations when it was provided simultaneously with CS–US pairings. Frequency of CS–US pairings had no effect on implicit evaluations. Although the results can be reconciled with both propositional and dual-process accounts, they are more parsimoniously explained by propositional accounts.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document