» Articles » PMID: 29313238

Proactive Interference by Cues Presented Without Outcomes: Differences in Context Specificity of Latent Inhibition and Conditioned Inhibition

Overview
Journal Learn Behav
Publisher Springer
Date 2018 Jan 10
PMID 29313238
Citations 2
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

This report is part of a larger project examining associative interference as a function of the nature of the interfering and target associations. Lick suppression experiments with rats assessed the effects of context shifts on proactive outcome interference by latent inhibition (LI) and Pavlovian conditioned inhibition (CI) treatments on subsequently trained Pavlovian conditioned excitation treatment. LI and CI were trained in Context A during Phase 1, and then excitation treatment was administered in Context B during Phase 2, followed by tests for conditioned excitation in Contexts A, B, or C. Experiment 1 preliminarily established our LI and CI treatments and resulted in equally retarded acquisition of behavioral control when the target cue was subsequently trained as a conditioned excitor and tested in Context A. However, only CI treatment caused the target to pass a summation test for inhibition. Centrally, Experiment 2 consisted of LI and CI treatments in Context A followed by excitatory training in Context B. Testing found low excitatory control by both LI and CI cues in Context A relative to strong excitatory control in Context B, but CI treatment transferred to Context C more strongly than LI treatment. Experiment 3 determined that LI treatment failed to transfer to Context C even when the number of LI trials was greatly increased. Thus, first-learned LI appears to be relatively context specific, whereas first-learned CI generalizes to a neutral context. These observations add to existing evidence that LI and CI treatments result in different types of learning that diverge sharply in transfer to a novel test context.

Citing Articles

Context specificity of latent inhibition in the snail Cornu aspersum.

Muniz-Moreno J, Loy I Anim Cogn. 2022; 25(6):1517-1526.

PMID: 35579765 PMC: 9652167. DOI: 10.1007/s10071-022-01632-6.


Behavioral and neural mechanisms of latent inhibition.

Miller D, Rassaby M, Collins K, Milad M Learn Mem. 2022; 29(2):38-47.

PMID: 35042827 PMC: 8774194. DOI: 10.1101/lm.053439.121.

References
1.
Pearce J, Hall G . A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev. 1980; 87(6):532-52. View

2.
Polack C, Jozefowiez J, Miller R . Stepping back from 'persistence and relapse' to see the forest: Associative interference. Behav Processes. 2017; 141(Pt 1):128-136. PMC: 5476472. DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2017.03.014. View

3.
Rosas J, Callejas-Aguilera J . Acquisition of a conditioned taste aversion becomes context dependent when it is learned after extinction. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2006; 60(1):9-15. DOI: 10.1080/17470210600971519. View

4.
Miller R, Laborda M, Polack C, Miguez G . Comparing the context specificity of extinction and latent inhibition. Learn Behav. 2015; 43(4):384-95. PMC: 4641778. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-015-0186-x. View

5.
Lubow R, MOORE A . Latent inhibition: the effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1959; 52:415-9. DOI: 10.1037/h0046700. View