1974
DOI: 10.3758/bf03334289
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Latent inhibition of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response: Summation tests for active inhibition as a function of number of CS preexposures

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

2
17
0

Year Published

1984
1984
2008
2008

Publication Types

Select...
7

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 29 publications
(19 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
2
17
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Likewise, afferent projections to the NAC exhibit previously nonreinforced stimulus). Our results showed that lesion to the shell mimicked the effects of hippocampal lesion (Kaye & Pearce, 1987a, 1987bSolomon, Lohr, & Moore, 1974) in that it disrupted latent inhibition, whereas core lesion had no such effect (Weiner et al, 1996; see also Tai et al, 1995). It has been often noted that NAC lesion-induced deficits are similar to those obtained following hippocampal lesions (Annett et al, 1989;Maldonado-Irizarry & Kelley, 1995;Reading & Dunnett, 1991;Schacter, Yang, Innis, & Mogenson, 1989;Seamans & Phillips, 1994; but see Sutherland & Rodriguez, 1989).…”
supporting
confidence: 64%
“…Likewise, afferent projections to the NAC exhibit previously nonreinforced stimulus). Our results showed that lesion to the shell mimicked the effects of hippocampal lesion (Kaye & Pearce, 1987a, 1987bSolomon, Lohr, & Moore, 1974) in that it disrupted latent inhibition, whereas core lesion had no such effect (Weiner et al, 1996; see also Tai et al, 1995). It has been often noted that NAC lesion-induced deficits are similar to those obtained following hippocampal lesions (Annett et al, 1989;Maldonado-Irizarry & Kelley, 1995;Reading & Dunnett, 1991;Schacter, Yang, Innis, & Mogenson, 1989;Seamans & Phillips, 1994; but see Sutherland & Rodriguez, 1989).…”
supporting
confidence: 64%
“…For example, if an animal is repeatedly exposed to a series of tones, these tones lose their capability to enter into associations with other stimuli, such as food or shock, or responses such as shuttle avoidance. The preexposed stimuli are retarded in the subsequent development of both excitatory and inhibitory conditioning and show no evidence of conditioned inhibition in summation test procedures (Reiss & Wagner, 1972;Rescorla, 1971; Solomon, Lohr, & Moore, 1974). The development of LI is considered to reflect a process of learning not to attend, to ignore, or tune out irrelevant stimuli (Lubow, Weiner, & Schnur, 1981;Mackintosh, 1973;; Moore, 1979;Wagner & Rescorla, 1972).…”
Section: Weiner Feldon and Ziv-harrismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…An alternative method to measuring conditioned inhibition is summation (e.g., Rescorla, 1969Rescorla, , 1971Solomon et al, 1974).). In the summation technique, a stimulus was first trained to become a conditioned inhibitor.…”
Section: The Summation Testmentioning
confidence: 99%