Responding to a conditioned stimulus depends on the current associative status of other cues present during training of that specific stimulus.

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

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.18.3.251

Cited by 33 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our demonstrations of the mediated-extinction effect in Experiment 1 made use of a simultaneous AX compound in the first phase of training and led us to conclude that this effect would be likely to obscure any recovery-from-overshadowing effect under these training conditions. But, as we have already noted, Miller et al (1992) have successfully obtained the latter effect using just such a training procedure. We must assume that there is some other factor at work in the experiments by Miller and his colleagues that tips the balance in favour of recovery from overshadowing, but we have no notion at this stage as to what this factor might be.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

“…A feature of the parameters used by Miller et al (1992) in their demonstration of recovery from overshadowing was that the target stimuli used on test (i.e., X and Y in the present notation) were intrinsically less effective at evoking conditioned suppression than were their associates (A and B). In contrast, previous work conducted in this laboratory indicated that the stimuli we used as X and Y were rather more salient than those used as A and B.…”

Section: Experiments 1bmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure

Shevill

Hall

2004

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments using the conditioned suppression procedure, rats received initial reinforced training with two compound stimuli, AX and BY, each compound consisting of one auditory and one visual element. After a second phase of training consisting of nonreinforced presentations of A, the suppression governed by X and Y was tested. In Experiment 1 X evoked slightly less suppression than Y (a mediated extinction effect). This outcome was obtained when the auditory cues served as X and Y(Experiment 1a), when the visual cues served as X and Y(Experiment 1b), and when the number of nonreinforced presentations of A was increased (Experiment 1c) from 18 to 216. In Experiment 2, however, in which the initial training was given with serial compounds (i.e., A --> X and B --> Y) X evoked more suppression than Y (a recovery-from-overshadowing effect). It was argued that extinction of A engages two learning processes, one increasing the effective associative strength of its associate (X) and one reducing it, and that the balance between these two depends on the specific conditions of training.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 64%

Section: Experiments 1bmentioning

confidence: 98%

Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure

Shevill

Hall

2004

The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…According to the comparator hypothesis, these extinction trials should weaken Links 2 and 3 and, hence, the net overshadowing effect. Consistent with this prediction, several investigators (e.g., Cole, Oberling, & Miller, 1999;Kaufman & Bolles, 1981;Matzel, Schachtman, & Miller, 1985;Miller, Barnet, & Grahame, 1992) have found that posttraining extinction of the more salient (overshadowing) CS restored robust conditioned responding to the less salient (overshadowed) element of the stimulus compound (but see Holland, 1999;Rauhut, McPhee, & Ayres, 1998). According to the comparator hypothesis's account of overshadowing, if the associative strengths of Links 2 and 3 increase over reinforced trials according to a monotonic function, overshadowing should become more pronounced with extended compound training.…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%

Overshadowing as a function of trial number: Dynamics of first- and second-order comparator effects

Stout

Arcediano

Escobar

et al. 2003

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In two conditioned lick suppression experiments with rats, we examined the permanence of the overshadowing effect as a function of the number of compound reinforced training trials. In Experiment 1, robust overshadowing was observed following 4 compound-US pairings but dissipated with 36 pairings. Overshadowing decreased because responding to the overshadowed stimulus increased, not because responding by the control group decreased. This dissipation was stimulus specific and not attributable to a response ceiling. Experiment 2 extended the generality of the effect to a sensory preconditioning design and further demonstrated that overshadowing lost through many compound-US pairings was restored by posttraining extinction of the training context. The results are explicable in terms of the extended comparator hypothesis (Denniston, Savastano, & Miller, 2001) under the assumption that the impacts of first-and second-order comparator processes grow differentially as a function of number of trials. STOUT, ARCEDIANO, ESCOBAR, AND MILLER

show abstract

“…Limited evidence for the specificity of comparator effects with respect to LI is seen in the present Experiment la, in which posttraining context extinction resulted in increased responding to the CS in Group LI-EXT, which had received the same CS during CS preexposure and the subsequent CS-strong US pairing, but not in Group C-EXT, which had received different CSs during CS preexposure and the subsequent CS-strong US pairing. More conclusive evidence for the specificity of comparator effects in general has heen seen in a variety of conditioning situations (e.g., conditioned inhibition, local context effects, and overshadowing) in a recent series of experiments by Miller, Barnet, and Grahame (1992).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Grahame

Barnet

Gunther

et al. 1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Treatments that attenuate latent inhibition (U) were examined using conditioned suppression in rats. In Experiment 1, retarded conditioned responding was produced by nonreinforced exposure to the CS prior to the CS-US pairings used to assess retardation (Le., conventional U). In Experiment la, retarded conditioned responding was induced by preexposure to pairings of the CS and a weak US prior to retardation-test pairings of the CS with a strong US (Le., Hall-Pearce [1979] U). Both types of U were attenuated by extensive exposure to the training context (Le., context extinction) following the CS-US pairings of the retardation test. Experiment 2 examined the specificity of the attenuated U effect observed in Experiment 1. After preexposure to two different CSs in two different contexts, each CS was paired with a US in its respective preexposure context. One of the two contexts was then extinguished. This attenuated U to a greater degree for the CS that had been trained in the extinguished context. Experiment 3 differentiated the roles in 11 of CS-context associations and context-US associations. Following preexposure to the CS in the training context, U was reduced by further exposure to the CS outside the training context. This observation was interpreted as implicating the CS-context association as a factor in U. Thus, the results of these experiments suggest that U is a performance deficit mediated by unusually strong CS-context associations. Implications for Wagner's (1981) SOP model andMatzel's (1988) comparator hypothesis are discussed.Latent inhibition (Ll), also known as the CS-preexposure effect, is a deficit in Pavlovian responding to a reinforced conditioned stimulus (CS) observed when subjects are exposed to nonreinforced presentations of that CS prior to reinforced training (e.g., Lubow, 1973). Numerous theoretical explanations ofLl have been proposed, almost all of which have presumed that Ll results from a failure by subjects to acquire the CS-unconditionedstimulus (US) association (see, e.g., Lubow, Schnur, 8? Rifkin, 1976;Mackintosh, 1975;Pearce & Hall, 1980;Wagner, 1981). Typically, these theories propose that the nonreinforced pretraining exposure to the target CS decreases attentional or memorial processing of the CS, which impairs the subject's ability to associate the CS with a US when these elements are later paired.However, theories explaining Ll as solely the result of impaired acquisition have been challenged by recent findings which indicate that responding to the CS can be increased by various treatments administered after the retardation-test CS-US pairings. These include a "reminder treatment," which consists of the US administered alone outside the training context (Kasprow, Catterson, Schachtman, & Miller, 1984), and testing that is extensively delayed after the CS-US pairings (Kraemer, Randall, & Carbary, 1991). These observations suggest that CS preexposure produces a reversible performance failure, whereby subjects are slow to respond in accord with the novel contingency encount...

show abstract

Responding to a conditioned stimulus depends on the current associative status of other cues present during training of that specific stimulus.

Cited by 33 publications

References 17 publications

Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure

Retrospective revaluation effects in the conditioned suppression procedure

Overshadowing as a function of trial number: Dynamics of first- and second-order comparator effects

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

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About