1959
DOI: 10.1037/h0046700
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

15
527
1
10

Year Published

1996
1996
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
7
2

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 805 publications
(553 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
15
527
1
10
Order By: Relevance
“…However, it is possible that the training in the Group Paired retarded acquisition of the noise-sucrose association in testing for a reason other than inhibitory learning. If paired training produced a greater reduction in attention to the noise than unpaired training, for example, then one would expect slower acquisition of the noise-sucrose association (e.g., Lubow & Moore, 1959), regardless of the status of noise-tone associations. Although there is no obvious reason to expect such an effect on attention, this possibility was explored in Experiment 1b.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, it is possible that the training in the Group Paired retarded acquisition of the noise-sucrose association in testing for a reason other than inhibitory learning. If paired training produced a greater reduction in attention to the noise than unpaired training, for example, then one would expect slower acquisition of the noise-sucrose association (e.g., Lubow & Moore, 1959), regardless of the status of noise-tone associations. Although there is no obvious reason to expect such an effect on attention, this possibility was explored in Experiment 1b.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Training in this format is hypothesized to improve generalization to real world situations via a state dependent learning component (Godden & Baddeley, 1980) and further supports resilience by leveraging the learning theory process of latent inhibition. Latent inhibition refers to the delayed learning that occurs as a result of pre-exposure to a stimulus without a consequence (Feldner, Monson, & Friedman, 2007; Lubow & Moore, 1959). Thus, the exposure to a simulated combat context is believed to decrease the likelihood of fear conditioning during the real event (Sones, Thorp, & Raskind, 2011).…”
Section: Beyond Vret: Vr For the Assessment And Prevention Of Ptsdmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Prior pre-exposure to either the to-be-conditioned stimulus (CS) or unconditioned stimulus (US) can impede the development and/or expression of the conditioned response (CR) following subsequent pairing between the CS and the US. The reduction in the vigor of the CR observed following nonreinforced CS preexposure is referred to as latent inhibition (LI; Lubow and Moore, 1959), and that following US pre-exposure is referred to as the US pre-exposure effect (USPEE; Randich and LoLordo, 1979). Both phenomena can be demonstrated in numerous species, including human and rodent, and across a variety of associative conditioning procedures (Lubow, 1989;Cannon et al, 1975;Batson and Best, 1979;Baker et al, 1981).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%