Latent inhibition: A trace conditioning phenomenon?

Latent inhibition: No effect of intertrial interval of the preexposure trials

“…The results of the present experiments, in combination with some previous work (DeVietti et al ., 1986), can be readily summarized. Given six PE trials, ITls ranging from "short" (10-30 sec) through "long" (300 sec) were without effect in producing LI.…”

“…Furthermore, this result occurred both when the PE trials were administered two per day for 3 days or when all six PE trials were administered in a single session. We have previously demonstrated that LI is not obtained with six PE trials to a 3-sec tone (DeVietti et al, 1986) when such trials were administered two per day for 3 days either with an ITI of 300 sec (Experiment 1) or an ITI of 30 sec (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, we used six PE trials with a 3-sec tone and varied the ITI between 10 and 300 sec in a single session.…”

A single administration of d -amphetamine prior to stimulus pre-exposure and conditioning attenuates latent inhibition

“…For instance, longer CSs (30 s) were used in the present study compared to those used by Weiner et al (1984, 3 s). DeVietti et al (1987) postulate that LI develops as a decrease in the salience of the CS and that longer CSs lose salience more rapidly than CSs of short duration. It would be expected that in the present study amphetamine would be less likely to attenuate LI.…”

Reconciling the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: a model of attention in associative learning

“…One implication of this assumption is that, with repeated presentations, later features of the trial will become predicted by earlier features. Although we are aware of at least one study of latent inhibition that is consistent with this analysis [50], we cannot evaluate the influence or generality of this mechanism at this point, and shall therefore refrain from attempting to formalize it.…”