Associative effects of US preexposure: Modulation of conditioned responding by an excitatory training context.

Matzel, Louis D.; Brown, Andrea M.; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.13.1.65

Cited by 61 publications

(61 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…(2) Long retention intervals between training and testing have produced attenuation ofextinction (Pavlov, 1927) and the CS preexposure effect (Kraemer, Randall, & Carbary, 1991). (3) Posttraining extinction manipulations have successfully revealed latent associations in the CS preexposure effect (Grahame, Barnet, Gunther, & Miller, 1994) and the US preexposure effect (Matzel, Brown, & Miller, 1987). (4) Second-order conditioning procedures have been observed to promote the expression of otherwise unexpressed learning in simultaneous conditioning (Barnet, Arnold, & Miller, 1991;Rescorla, 1980) and trace conditioning deficits (Cole, Barnet, & Miller, 1995b).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Cole

Denniston

Miller

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The roles of deficient acquisition and deficient expression of learned information in the effect of relative stimulus validity were examined using rats in a conditioned lick suppression paradigm. Recovery from the effect without further pairings of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US) would favor an interpretation of the relative validity effect based on a latent CS-US association as distinct from a failure to acquire the CS-US association. As a potential recovery manipulation, "reminder" treatments, consisting of the US alone (Experiment 1) or the CS alone (Experiment 2), were administered following relative validity training. In both cases, subjects for which the CS target was of low relative predictive validity exhibited enhanced responding relative to appropriate controls. Additionally, Experiment 2 showed that the amelioration of the relative validity deficit was stimulus specific. Thus, the results of these experiments support previous suggestions that the performance deficit resulting from low relative stimulus validity is due, at least in part, to a failure to express acquired information (Cole, Barnet, & Miller, 1995a). This conclusion is discussed as a part of the larger issue of acquisition versus performance failures.Cue competition effects arise in situations in which two or more conditioned stimuli (CSs) are presented together in a predictive relationship with an unconditioned stimulus (US). Empirically, cue competition effects are evidenced through an attenuation in responding to one of those CSs (henceforth referred to as the target CS) relative to that seen if the target CS alone had been paired with the US. Cue competition in Pavlovian conditioning includes blocking (see, e.g., Kamin, 1969), overshadowing (e.g., Kamin, 1969;Mackintosh, 1976;Pavlov, 1927), and the effect of relative stimulus validity (e.g., Wagner, Logan, Haberlandt, & Price, 1968;Wasserman, 1974). Traditionally, most major theories of conditioning have explained cue competition as an acquisition deficit, defined here as a failure to initially encode a training event (see, e.g., Hawkins & Kandel, 1984;Mackintosh, 1975;Pearce, 1987;Pearce & Hall, 1980;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972;Thompson, 1986). However, some models have suggested explanations of cue competition effects that emphasize differences in the expression ofacquired information rather than differences in information acquisition. For example, Gibbon and Balsam (1981);Miller, Kasprow, and Schachtman (1986); have suggested that the performance deficits witnessed in cue competition effects are due to a failure to retrieve or express information previously acquired. To better illustrate how these two families of theories address cue Support for this research was provided by National Institute of Mental Health Grant 33881. We thank Nicholas Grahame, Lisa Gunther, and Philippe Oberling for comments on earlier versions of this manuscript and Lee Mattes for assistance with data collection. Correspondence should be addressed to R. R. Miller, Department ofP...

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Cole

Denniston

Miller

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To examine this possibility, in Experiment 4 we extinguished the conditioning context after simultaneous CS-US pairings. Matzel et al (1987) showed that this manipulation reduced a response deficit known to result from an excitatory training context, the US-preexposure deficit.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Conis thought to impede both acquisition of CS-US associa-ditioning was conducted on Days 3-5. On these days, all animals spent tions (e.g ., Randich & LoLordo, 1979) and their expres-20 min in Contexts B, C, and D. Groups F-MC (forward-multipleconsion (e.g., Matzel, Brown, & Miller, 1987). In the present texts) and S-MC (simultaneous-multiple contexts) were placed in the contexts in the order B, C, and D, where they received two randomly experiments we examined the possibility that the associa-distributed3-sec, 0.5-mA, constant-eurrent footshocks in a differentcontive strength of the training context might modulate the text on each day.…”

Section: State University Of New York At Binghamton Binghamton New mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Equivalentanimals had previously been found tion about the US; that is, the US is unsignaled. Conse-to discriminate between these contexts (Matzel et al, 1987). A 1500-quently, the context might be expected to acquire a higher Hz tone, 12 dB(C) above background,could be deliveredto all contexts.…”

Section: State University Of New York At Binghamton Binghamton New mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Contextual modulation of simultaneous associations

Matzel

Castillo

Miller

1988

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Subjects. Twenty-four male and 24 female adult Sprague-Dawley descended naive rats served as subjects. Body weights were 240-395 g for males and 195-280 g for females. The animals were singly housed in a vivarium maintained on a 16:8-h light:dark cycle, with experimental manipulations occurring near the middle of the light phase. The 1988, 26 (4), [371][372][373][374] Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society Contextual modulation of simultaneous associations LOUIS D. MATZEL, JUAN CASTILLO, and RALPH R. MILLER State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, New YorkIn four experiments with water-deprived rats, we examined the possibility that simultaneous associations between a conditioned stimulus (CS)and an unconditioned stimulus (US) were modulated or masked by context-US associations. In Experiment 1 we determined that simultaneous CS-US pairings administered in multiple contexts enhanced responding to the CS relative to training in a single context. A forward CS-US arrangement produced no such enhancement. In subsequent experiments, animals were trained in a single context. In Experiment 2, the number ofCS-US pairings was varied and no inverse relationship between the response directly elicited by the training context and the response elicited by the CS was found. In Experiments 3 and 4, we detected no effect on the response to the CS of extensive exposure to the training context before or after simultaneous CS-US pairings, although such latent inhibition or extinction treatment reduced the response elicited by the context. In total, these results indicate that the response to a simultaneously trained CS may be modulated by its training context, but that the response to the CS does not simply vary inversely with the response potential of that context. When a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned animals had free access to food, whereas water availability outside the stimulus (US) are paired simultaneously , the CS typically experimental sessions was limited to 10 min/day. elicits a weaker conditioned response than is elicited by Apparatus. Four typesof contexts(sixof each)were used. Eachchamber was individually housed in an environmental chest. Context A was the same CS when trained with a forward relationship to a clear Plexiglas box (22.75 x 8.25 X 13 em) with a floor of 0.48-emthe US (e.g. , Burkhardt & Ayres, 1978;Pavlov, 1927). diameter steel rods. On a narrow wall, there was a water-filledlick tube Although this simultaneous conditioning deficit typically connectedto a lickometer. Context B in verticalprofilewas a truncated V is thought to represent a learning failure due to the poor (30 em long, 28 ern high, and 21 ern wide at the top, 5.25 em wide information value of the CS (e.g., Cantor, 1981), studies at the bottom), with black Plexiglas end walls. The floor and side walls were constructed of sheet metal with a 1.25-em gap centered lengthof CS information value in classical conditioning that com-wise in the floor. A lick tube, attachedto a lickometer, protrudedthrough pare simultaneou...

show abstract

“…The decrement of the CR after nonreinforced CS pre-exposure is referred to as latent inhibition (LI; Lubow and Moore 1959), and that after US preexposure is referred to as the US pre-exposure effect (USPEE; Randich and LoLordo 1979). Both phenomena can be studied in numerous species, including human and rodent, and across a variety of associative conditioning procedures (Lubow 1989;Moser et al 2000;Riley and Simpson 2001;Baker et al 1981;Matzel et al 1987;Claflin and Buffington 2006).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Disruption of the US pre-exposure effect and latent inhibition in two-way active avoidance by systemic amphetamine in C57BL/6 mice

et al. 2006

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Pre-exposure to either one of the two to-beassociated stimuli alone is known to reduce the efficiency of the learning of their association when they are subsequently paired explicitly. In classical conditioning, pre-exposure to the conditioned stimulus (CS) gives rise to latent inhibition (LI); and pre-exposure to the unconditioned stimulus (US) results in the US pre-exposure effect (USPEE). Considerable evidence supports an important role of central dopamine in the regulation and modulation of LI; it has been suggested that the USPEE may be similarly controlled by dopamine, but this parallelism has only been directly demonstrated in the conditioned taste aversion paradigm. Objective The present study tested this hypothesis by comparing the efficacy of systemic amphetamine treatment to affect the expression of LI and the USPEE in a two-way active avoidance paradigm. Methods C57BL/6 male mice were tested in active avoidance using a tone CS and a foot-shock US. Twenty-four hours before, they were pre-exposed to 100 presentations of the CS or the US, or to the test apparatus only. Amphetamine (2.5 mg/kg) or saline was administered before stimulus preexposure and conditioned avoidance test, in which the mice learned to avoid the shock by shuttling in response to the tone. Results Amphetamine disrupted both stimulus pre-exposure effects, thus, lending further support to the hypothesis that the USPEE is similar to LI in its sensitivity to dopamine receptor agonist. Hence, the USPEE paradigm may represent a valuable addition to the study of dopamine-sensitive processes of selective learning currently implicated in LI and Kamin blocking.

show abstract

Associative effects of US preexposure: Modulation of conditioned responding by an excitatory training context.

Cited by 61 publications

References 26 publications

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Contextual modulation of simultaneous associations

Disruption of the US pre-exposure effect and latent inhibition in two-way active avoidance by systemic amphetamine in C57BL/6 mice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About