Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference

Abstract

Two fear-conditioning experiments with rats assessed whether retrospective revaluation, which has been observed in cue competition (i.e., when compounded cues are followed with an outcome), can also be observed in retroactive cue interference (i.e., when different cues are reinforced in separate phases with the same outcome). Experiment 1 found that after inducing retroactive cue interference (i.e., X-outcome followed by A-outcome), nonreinforced presentations of the interfering cue (A) decreases interference with responding to the target cue (X), just as has been observed in retrospective revaluation experiments in cue competition. Using the opposite manipulation (i.e., adding reinforced presentations of A), Experiment 2 demonstrated that after inducing retroactive cue interference, additional reinforced presentations of the interfering cue (A) increases interference with responding to the target cue (X); alternatively stated, the amount of interference increases with the amount of training with the interfering cue. Thus, both types of retrospective revaluation occur in retroactive cue competition. The results are discussed in terms of the possibility that similar associative mechanisms underlie cue competition and cue interference.

Blocking is not ‘pure’ cue competition: Renewal-like effects in forward and backward blocking indicate contributions by associative cue interference.

“…It has long been recognized that both proactive and retroactive associative interference is subject to reversal by testing outside of the context of target training (i.e., renewal; Bouton, 1993; Miguez et al, 2012) and extinction of the interfering cue (e.g., Miguez et al, 2014) among other manipulations. Such recovery lends support to the view that proactive and retroactive interference are both lapses of memory (i.e., retrieval failures) as opposed to erasure of the target memory or, in the case of proactive interference, potentially a failure to initially encode the target memory.…”

Ethanol tolerance from a Pavlovian perspective.

“…On the other hand, the area of associative learning has made great strides in the past few years, including the study of a greater and more diverse range of variables. Research in timing, context, response revaluation, and others (e.g., Bouton, 1993; Miguez, Laborda, & Miller, 2014; Molet, Urcelay, Miguez, & Miller, 2010) makes necessary to expand the studies in associative tolerance. If ethanol tolerance is, at least in part, a product of Pavlovian associations, one would expect it to be affected by these and other variables.…”

Stepping back from ‘persistence and relapse’ to see the forest: Associative interference

“…As one might expect, stronger associations are favored for expression (e.g., Denniston, Chang, & Miller, 2003). Thus, differences in the number of training trials in each phase can shape the amount of interference observed, as can modifying the effective strengths of the associations after the conventional two phases of interference training has taken place (e.g., posttraining associative deflation of the interfering association; Miguez, Laborda, & Miller, 2014). These three factors conjointly influence the degree that associative interference will be observed.…”

“…To the limited extent examined, deflating the interfering association also induces recovery of an excitatory target association from both retroactive cue interference (i.e., retrospective revaluation; Miguez, Laborda, & Miller, 2014) and proactive cue interference (Amundson et al, 2003). Based on the data available to date, recovery from associative interference through one or another means suggests that most interference is a retrieval failure rather than an irreversible loss of memory.…”