The role of test context in latent inhibition of conditioned inhibition: Part of a search for general principles of associative interference

Abstract

Two lick-suppression experiments with rats assessed interference with behavior indicative of conditioned inhibition by a latent inhibition treatment as a function of test context. We asked what effect the test context has, given identical latent inhibition treatment in Phase 1 and identical conditioned inhibition training in Phase 2. In Experiment 1, an AAA vs. AAB context-shift design determined that latent inhibition treatment in Phase 1 attenuated behavior indicative of conditioned inhibition training administered in Phase 2 regardless of the test context, which could reflect a failure to either acquire or express conditioned inhibition. In Experiment 2, an ABA vs. ABB design found that test performance in Contexts A and B reflected the treatments that had been administered in those contexts (i.e., conditioned inhibition was observed in Context B but not A), which could reflect either context specificity of latent inhibition or context specificity of conditioned inhibition. In either case, latent inhibition of conditioned inhibition training in at least some situations was seen to reflect an expression deficit rather than an acquisition deficit. These data, in conjunction with prior reports, suggest that latent inhibition is relatively specific to the context in which it was administered, whereas conditioned inhibition is specific to its training context only when it is the second learned relationship concerning the target cue. These experiments are part of a larger effort to delineate control by the test context of two-phase associative interference as a function of the nature of target training and the nature of interference training.

Conditioned inhibition: Historical critiques and controversies in the light of recent advances.

“…Moreover, when testing conditioned inhibition outside from the context within which latent inhibition operations were carried out, the effects of latent inhibition waned. Together, the findings of Miguez et al (2015) support the idea that latent inhibition effects can be better understood as interference upon performance rather than upon learning.…”

“…In another study, Miguez, Soares, and Miller (2015), after demonstrating that conditioned inhibition effects could be attenuated by prior latent inhibition operations, sought to inquire whether this phenomenon was context-specific. Using a conditioned suppression paradigm, these authors observed that when latent inhibition and feature-negative discrimination operations were conducted in different contexts, the interference of the former upon the latter was disrupted.…”

Proactive interference by cues presented without outcomes: Differences in context specificity of latent inhibition and conditioned inhibition

“…As previously stated, this finding challenges accounts of LI and CI that posit that the observed retardation in development of stimulus control by the target cue is due to a failure to learn (e.g., the view that LI training decreases attention to the target cue, thereby retarding excitatory acquisition per se). Along with other reports (e.g., Miguez, Soares, & Miller, 2015), the present experiments indicate that the associative interference that produces retarded acquisition of behavioral control is due to conflict at test between memories of the two training experiences, not the product of an acquisition or retention deficit.…”

Behavioral and neural mechanisms of latent inhibition

“…Studies in animals suggest that LI is context-dependent. Specifically, the LI effect is attenuated or abolished when the context in which the CS was presented changes between pre-exposure and conditioning ( Hall and Channell 1985 ; Escobar et al 2002 ; Quintero et al 2011a , b ; Miguez et al 2015 , 2018 ; Miller et al 2015 ). Shifts in temporal contexts have also been shown to modulate the magnitude of LI ( Manrique et al 2004 ; Molero et al 2005 ).…”