Reinstatement-induced recovery of a taste-LiCl association following extinction

Schachtman, Todd R.; Brown, Andrea M.; Miller, Ralph R.

doi:10.3758/bf03200013

Cited by 40 publications

(54 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One previous experiment using taste-aversion conditioning in rats revealed that a combined increase in the number of extinction trials and the length of the retention interval reduced recovery from extinction following US reinstatement (Schachtman, Brown, & Miller, 1985). However, this taste-aversion experiment did not differentiate between the degree of extinction and the retention interval as the critical factor.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

Weidemann

Kehoe

2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 86%

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

Weidemann

Kehoe

2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…During reacquisition training, savings is apparent because relearning occurs much faster than original learning (Frey and Ross, 1968;Napier et al, 1992). The existence of savings is among the evidence supporting the notion that extinction training leaves behind residual excitatory strength (Reberg, 1972;Schactman et al, 1985;Kehoe, 1988). Here we present evidence for this residual-plasticity hypothesis in eyelid conditioning and characterize basic mechanisms involved in the savings observed with this form of motor learning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 77%

A Mechanism for Savings in the Cerebellum

2001

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The phenomenon of savings (the ability to relearn faster than the first time) is a familiar property of many learning systems. The utility of savings makes its underlying mechanisms of special interest. We used a combination of computer simulations and reversible lesions to investigate mechanisms of savings that operate in the cerebellum during eyelid conditioning, a well characterized form of motor learning. The results suggest that a site of plasticity outside the cerebellar cortex (possibly in the cerebellar nucleus) can be protected from the full consequences of extinction and that the residual plasticity that remains can later contribute to the savings seen during relearning.Key words: plasticity; learning; memory; eyelid conditioning; simulation; LTD; LTP; extinction Riding a bicycle, playing the piano, and typing are examples of motor skills that illustrate our capacity for relearning that is much more rapid than the original learning. In the laboratory, this rapid relearning is known as savings and has been frequently studied in the context of Pavlovian conditioning of motor responses. During conditioning of eyelid responses for example, paired presentations of a tone [the conditioned stimulus (CS)] and a reinforcing unconditioned stimulus (US), such as periorbital electrical stimulation, promote the acquisition of a conditioned motor response (closing the eyelid in response to the tone). These conditioned responses can be unlearned during extinction training in which the CS is not paired with the US (Schneiderman et al., 1962). During reacquisition training, savings is apparent because relearning occurs much faster than original learning (Frey and Ross, 1968;Napier et al., 1992). The existence of savings is among the evidence supporting the notion that extinction training leaves behind residual excitatory strength (Reberg, 1972;Schactman et al., 1985;Kehoe, 1988). Here we present evidence for this residual-plasticity hypothesis in eyelid conditioning and characterize basic mechanisms involved in the savings observed with this form of motor learning.A variety of evidence indicates that the cerebellum is a necessary component of the neural pathways that mediate eyelid conditioning (Thompson, 1986;Thompson and Krupa, 1994;Raymond et al., 1996;Kim and Thompson, 1997). This evidence, combined with the well characterized synaptic organization and physiology of the cerebellum (Eccles et al., 1967;Llinas, 1981;Ito, 1984;Voogd and Glickstein, 1998), makes it possible to build large-scale computer simulations of the cerebellum and to test their capacity to display eyelid conditioning. We have shown previously that, by incorporating the evidence for plasticity at two sites (one in the cerebellar cortex and one in the cerebellar interpositus nucleus), these simulations can emulate the acquisition and extinction of conditioned responses (Medina et al., 2000). Here we report that these same simulations also display savings, even after extensive extinction training. In the simulations, the rules for plasticity combine...

show abstract

“…There are abundant examples using a variety of treatments that support such a conclusion. For example: (I) Reminder treatments have proven successful in revealing latent associations in several paradigms, including reinstatement of conditioned taste aversions following extinction (Schachtman, Brown, & Miller, 1985); reinstatement of audiovisual CSs following extinction (Bouton, 1990;Bouton & Bolles, 1979;Rescorla & Heth, 1975); the CS preexposure effect (Kasprow et aI., 1984); performance failures caused by electroconvulsive shock (Miller et aI., 1974); infantile amnesia (Campbell & Jaynes, 1966); and spontaneous forgetting (Deweer et aI., 1980). (2) Long retention intervals between training and testing have produced attenuation ofextinction (Pavlov, 1927) and the CS preexposure effect (Kraemer, Randall, & Carbary, 1991).…”

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

Reinstatement-induced recovery of a taste-LiCl association following extinction

Cited by 40 publications

References 16 publications

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

A Mechanism for Savings in the Cerebellum

Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About