Latent inhibition from context-dependent retrieval of conflicting information

Reversible inactivation of the entorhinal cortex disrupts the establishment and expression of latent inhibition of cued fear conditioning in C57BL/6 mice

“…It is well established that the EC both projects to and receives extensive projections from the hippocampus (for review see Burwell, 2000). Because the hippocampus is critically involved in the formation of contextual associations (for review see Fanselow and Poulos, 2005) and latent inhibition is known to be context dependent (Channell and Hall, 1983;Lovibond et al, 1984;Swartzentruber and Bouton, 1986;Wright et al, 1986), it is possible that the disruption in latent inhibition of cued fear conditioning observed at both CS preexposure and testing may have resulted from alterations in contextual associations. However, we feel that this possibility is remote, as muscimol infusions at training had no effect on latent inhibition of cued fear conditioning.…”

“…Numerous studies have reported that latent inhibition is attenuated if CS preexposure occurs in one context and training occurs in a context distinct from the preexposure context (Channell and Hall, 1983;Lovibond et al, 1984;Hall and Minor, 1984;Hall and Channell, 1985;Swartzentruber and Bouton, 1986;Wright et al, 1986). Holt and Maren (1999) showed attenuated latent inhibition (i.e., expression of conditioned responses (CRs)) when the testing context differed from the preexposure context.…”

“…If the EC is involved in cued fear conditioning, infusion of muscimol into the EC during training in mice not undergoing latent inhibition should prevent the development of CRs. Based on behavioral data that has shown reversal of latent inhibition-associated deficits in CRs (McIntosh and Tarpy, 1977;Channell and Hall, 1983;Kasprow et al, 1984;Lovibond et al, 1984;Hall and Minor, 1984;Hall and Channell, 1985;Swartzentruber and Bouton, 1986;Wright et al, 1986;Bakner et al, 1991;Holt and Maren, 1999), we predicted that changes occurring in the EC during CS preexposure alter the expression of CRs at testing and thus infusion of muscimol into the EC at testing would disrupt latent inhibition.…”

Preexposure of the conditioning context and latent inhibition from reduced conditioning

“…Lubow, Wagner, and Weiner (1982) showed an asymptote at between 20 and 40 PCEs using 0,20,40, or 80 PCEs. Comparing across separate experiments, Wright et al (1986) noted a failure to find differences between rats given 15 PCEs and rats given 30 PCEs in the conditioning context. Given previous research, failure to find a difference between groups given 12 PCEs and 60 PCEs in the current study is not surprising.…”

“…Recently, Wright, Skala, and Peuser (1986) reported a failure to demonstrate latent inhibition (LI) in rats given preconditioning exposure to a tone stimulus (PCE). In their experiments, the no-preexposure comparison group entered conditioning without having experienced either the tone CS or the conditioning context and, therefore, might be considered to be a SnCn group.…”