Latent inhibition as a performance deficit resulting from CS—context associations

Grahame, Nicholas J.; Barnet, Robert C.; Gunther, Lisa M.; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.3758/bf03209159

Cited by 85 publications

(111 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

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

“…For instance, the latent inhibition effect can be disrupted by presentation of the US in a different context (Kaspow, Catterson, Schachtman & Miller, 1984), the passage of time between Phase 1 (pre-exposure) and Phase 2 (CS-US training; e.g., Kraemer, Randall & Carbary, 1991, Hall & Minor, 1984 and 'extinction' of the context present in Phase 1 (Baker & Mercier, 1982;Grahame, Barnet, Gunther, & Miller, 1994; but see also, Hall & Minor, 1984;Zalstein-Orda & Lubow, 1995).…”

Section: Deconstructing Latent Inhibitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Individual differences are more than a gene × environment interaction: The role of learning.

Byrom

Murphy

2018

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in behavior are understood generally as arising from an interaction between genes and environment, omitting a crucial component. The literature on animal and human learning suggests the need to posit principles of learning to explain our differences. One of the challenges for the advancement of the field has been to establish how general principles of learning can explain the almost infinite variation in behavior. We present a case that: 1) individual differences in behavior emerge, in part, from principles of learning; 2) associations provide a descriptive mechanism for understanding the contribution of experience to behavior; 3) learning theories explain dissociable aspects of behavior. We use four examples from the field of learning to illustrate the importance of involving psychology, and associative theory in particular, in the analysis of individual differences, these are; i) fear learning, ii) behavior directed to cues for outcomes (i.e., sign-and goaltracking), iii) stimulus learning related to attention, and iv) human causal learning. Individual Differences 3A goal of research into learning is to characterize how behavior changes with experience within and across species. Thorndike's (1898) Law of Effect was an early attempt to characterize the effect of experience on behavior. In offering a general law of how experience contributes to behavior, Thorndike was also giving an account of how an individual becomes unique.The classic example of Thorndike's method involved cats and an apparatus known as a puzzle box (Thorndike, 1898). The box was a rudimentary cage with latches and gates to afford escape. The cats' dislike of confined space provided a natural motivation to engage in behaviors that might serendipitously lead to release. Thorndike observed that the cats made many false starts but eventually made a response that enabled escape. With repeated exposure to the box, latency to escape decreased. The Law of Effect stated that behaviors preceding any form of 'satisfaction' (e.g., escape) would be reinforced and made more likely on subsequent trials. However, rather than considering this principle as limiting an animal's flexibility to learn, the law only restricts the conditions for learning. Consider that outside the lab, different humans can successfully complete a motivated goal in different ways. They may behave differently but the same Law of Effect strengthens their behaviors.The goals of this paper are to present the case for the individual differences approach to learning theory. We will argue that (1) learning mediates the influence of genes and environment on behavior and (2) there is complexity, to be explored, within models of learning that can account for diversity in learning. Specifically, we suggest that while genes and environment may contribute to the development of differences in learning, that an individual's phenotype interacts with experience and the memories of experience to further cause individual differences. As such, the study of individual diff...

show abstract

“…On the other hand, there are numerous studies, using fear conditioning in rats, that have shown that overshadowing of one element (A) ofa reinforced AB compound can be reversed by posttraining extinction of B (Kaufman & Bolles, 1981;Matzel, Schachtman, & Miller, 1985;Yin, Grahame, & Miller, 1993). Similarly, latent inhibition ofa CS was attenuated by extensive exposure to the training context (i.e., context extinction) following CS-US pairings (Grahame, Barnet, Gunther, & Miller, 1994). However, in several other studies in which rats were trained with an AB compound followed by extinction of B, decreased performance to A was observed (e.g., Holland & Ross, 1981;Rescorla & Cunningham, 1978;Speers, Gillan, & Rescoria, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the detection ofevidence for retroactive revaluation may depend on whether A borrows associative strength from B on test. For example, in several ofthe experiments by Miller and his colleagues (e.g., Grahame et a!., 1994;Yin et a!., 1993), retroactive revaluation of a discrete CS was brought about by extinction of the training context. In these experiments, the critical CS-context associations would have been relatively weak in comparison with the strong odor-taste associations established in the experiment reported by Durlach and Rescorla (1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Retroactive revaluation of an odor-taste association

Harris

Westbrook

1998

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats showed an increase or decrease in preference for an aqueous odor conditioned stimulus (CS) presented in compound with a palatable (sucrose) or unpalatable (quinine) taste unconditioned stimulus (US), respectively. Four experiments then studied the consequences for odor preference of presenting water in the context where the odor-taste compound had previously occurred (i.e., no-CSno-US experience). Exposure to that context increased the preference for the odor associate of sucrose and decreased preference for the odor associate of quinine. The increased preference for the odor associate of sucrose was contingent on reexposure to the context where the odor-sucrose compound had occurred (i.e., retroactive revaluation) and was reduced by preexposure to the context where the odor-sucrose compound was to occur (Le.,latent inhibition of the context). The retroactive revaluation of within-event learning caused by exposures to the associated context is discussed in terms of (1) the modified version of the SOP model (Wagner, 1981) proposed by Dickinson and Burke (1996)and (2) the comparator model (Miller & Matzel, 1988).Contemporary theories ofassociative learning have been strongly influenced by demonstrations that responding to a target conditioned stimulus (CS) is modulated by the status of that and other CSs present during training. Interference effects such as overshadowing, blocking, and latent inhibition have inspired theories that describe the mechanisms by which CSs compete for attentional processing and for associative strength with the unconditioned stimulus (US) (Mackintosh, 1975;Pearce & Hall, 1980;Rescorla & Wagner, 1972;Wagner, 1981). Thus, these theories typically attribute variations in conditioned responding to differences in the acquisition ofassociations during CS-US pairings. Moreover, these theories assume that modulation of CS-US associations can occur only when the animal is directly exposed to the CS.However, this view has been challenged by demonstrations that performance to a CS can be increased or decreased retroactively by changing the associative strength between other CSs and the US. For example, studies investigating learning of stimulus-outcome relations in human subjects have shown that performance to an overshadowed stimulus can be retroactively increased by posttraining exposures to the paired stimulus. Specifically, if subjects learn the association between a compound cue, AB, and a particular outcome, then the predictive value accorded A can be retroactively decreased by paired presentations of B and the outcome (Chapman, 1991;Dickinson

show abstract

Latent inhibition as a performance deficit resulting from CS—context associations

Cited by 85 publications

References 23 publications

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Individual differences are more than a gene × environment interaction: The role of learning.

Retroactive revaluation of an odor-taste association

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About