A context-specific latent inhibition effect in a human conditioned suppression task

Three studies used a computer video game preparation to demonstrate latent inhibition in adult humans. In all studies participants fired torpedoes at a target spaceship by clicking the mouse. Conditioned stimuli (CSs) were presented in the form of coloured “sensors” at the bottom of the screen. Conditioning was conducted by pairing a sensor with an attack from the target spaceship. Participants learned to suppress their rate of mouse clicking in preparation for an attack. In Experiment 1 a total of 10 preexposures to the sensor CS, prior to conditioning, retarded acquisition of suppression. In Experiment 2 the effect of preexposure was shown to be context specific. Experiment 3 showed little generalization of the preexposure effect from one sensor CS to another. Experiment 3 also showed that preexposure did not make the sensor CS inhibitory. Comparisons with conditioned suppression procedures with animals and negative-priming procedures are briefly discussed.     

The US preexposure phenomenon in the conditioned suppression paradigm: A role for conditioned situational stimuli

Four experiments evaluated possible associative and nonassociative accounts of the retardation in the acquisition of conditioned suppression produced by repeated prior exposure to an electric shock US. Associative interference resulting from conditioning of situational stimuli during preexposure to shock was suggested by the findings that signaling the occurrence of high-intensity shock with a discrete nontarget CS during the preexposure phase reduced the magnitude of the retardation effect compared to an unsignaled shock preexposure treatment (Experiments 1 and 4), nonreinforced presentations of putatively conditioned situational stimuli prior to conditioned suppression training reduced the magnitude of the retardation effect (Experiment 2), and the magnitude of the retardation effect was directly related to the intensity of preexposure shock (Experiment 3). Nonassociative interference was suggested by the finding that signaling the occurrence of low-intensity shock with a discrete nontarget CS during the preexposure phase did not reduce the magnitude of the retardation effect compared to an unsignaled shock preexposure treatment (Experiment 4). It was suggested that associative and nonassociative mechanisms govern the US preexposure phenomenon obtained in the conditioned suppression paradigm, and their relative contribution depends upon the intensity of shock.     

Interaction between preexposure and overshadowing: Further analysis of the extended comparator hypothesis

Three experiments with rats used conditioned suppression of barpress to test predictions of the extended comparator hypothesis, which assumes that the effectiveness of (first-order) comparator stimuli in modulating responding to a target conditioned stimulus (CS) is itself modulated by other (second-order) comparator stimuli. Experiment 1 demonstrated that both pretraining exposure to the target CS alone (i.e., CS-preexposure effect, also known as latent inhibition) and pretraining exposure to a compound of the target CS and nontarget CS (i.e., compound-CS-preexposure effect) counteract overshadowing, and that posttraining deflation (i.e., extinction) of the overshadowing stimulus attenuates responding to the target CS when overshadowing is preceded by a CS-preexposure treatment (i.e., yields a CS-preexposure effect), but not when overshadowing is preceded by a compound-CS-preexposure treatment. Experiment 2 examined the consequences of posttraining associative inflation of the overshadowing stimulus or the preexposure companion stimulus following conjoint compound-CS-preexposure and overshadowing treatment. Experiment 3 examined the consequences of posttraining inflation of the overshadowing stimulus or the context following conjoint CS-alone preexposure and overshadowing treatment. The results support the expression-focused comparator view in contrast to recent acquisition-focused models of retrospective revaluation.     

Outcome pre- and postexposure effects: retention interval interacts with primacy and recency

Effects of outcome-alone pretraining and posttraining exposure were investigated in conditioned suppression experiments conducted within a sensory preconditioning preparation with rats. Experiment 1 found that interference by outcome postexposure was stronger than that by outcome preexposure, suggesting a recency effect. Experiment 2 found that after a long retention interval, outcome preexposure produced more interference than outcome postexposure, suggesting a shift from recency to primacy with increasing retention interval. Experiment 3 showed that presentation of a priming stimulus that had been embedded within the earlier phase of treatment also caused a shift from recency to primacy. These results suggest that, at least in a sensory preconditioning paradigm, retrievability of outcome-alone exposure memory is an important determinant of any outcome-alone exposure effect.     

Preexposure to the CS alone,US alone,or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition,blocking by context or learned irrelevance?

Three experiments on conditioned suppression in rats examined the extent to which preexposure to the CS, the US, or uncorrelated presentations of both interfere with future conditioning. Experiment 1 suggested that the interference caused by preexposure to the US alone may result from blocking by contextual cues: signaling the US during preexposure attenuated the interference. Experiment 2 demonstrated that signaling the US by another stimulus did not attenuate the interference caused by exposure to uncorrelated presentations of CS and US. Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiments 1 and 2 and directly compared the magnitude of these deficits. The results of these experiments imply that the effects of exposure to uncorrelated presentations of CS and US are not reducible to the sum of the effects of exposure to CS or US alone.     

Disrupting the conditioned stimulus preexposure effect in flavor-aversion learning: effects of interoceptive distractor manipulations

Rats exposed to a flavor prior to a conditioning trial involving that stimulus learn a significantly diminished flavor aversion relative to nonpreexposed control animals. A series of four experiments investigated the ability of the conditioned stimulus (CS) preexposure effect to be disrupted by the introduction of a distractor flavor stimulus between the preexposure and conditioning episodes. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the preexposure effect could be reduced by a distractor presented immediately following the preexposure. In Experiment 2, it was discovered that a novel distractor was more effective than a familiar distractor, even though both stimuli were sensorily equivalent. Experiment 3 further analyzed the distractor effect and demonstrated that the magnitude of disruption was more pronounced with immediate than with delayed (3 hr) distractor manipulations. Finally, Experiment 4 assessed the effects of the distractor in the absence of CS preexposure. The relation of the results from these experiments to general information theory is discussed.     

Latent Inhibition of Contextual Stimuli Reduces the US Preexposure Effect in Rats

Two experiments are reported which utilized latent inhibition of contextual stimuli prior to administering unsignaled presentations of the Us in an attempt to further assess the role of contextual stimuli in the US preexposure effect. Specifically in Experiment 1, rats received either 0-, 5-, 10-, or 15-minute exposure to the context in which the unsignaled Uss were to occur (latent inhibition). Following preexposure to the US, animals were trained in a CER paradigm with a tone CS. Measures of suppression to the tone indicated that the greatest US preexposure effect occurred in the 0 group and that no US preexposure effect was evident in the 15 group. Experiment 2 includec two important control groups which were omitted in Experiment 1 (no US preexposures) and an additional dependent variable (time to initiate licking) to measure fear to contextual stimuli. These results are discussed in terms of the role context conditioning may play in US preexposure.

     

Latent inhibition and conditioning after preexposure to the training context

Experiment 1, using the conditioned suppression technique with rats, showed that the retardation of learning produced by prior exposure to a stimulus (latent inhibition) was more marked in subjects given an initial phase of preexposure to the training context. This effect was confirmed and extended in Experiment 2 in which an appetitive conditioning procedure was used. Experiments 3 and 4, again using conditioned suppression, found no effect of preexposure to the context on the acquisition of suppression when training was given with a novel stimulus, either immediately after preexposure or after a delay; but context preexposure was again found to be effective when exposure to the to-be-conditioned stimulus was given in the delay interval between context preexposure and conditioning. The implications of these findings for accounts of the role of contextual factors in latent inhibition are discussed.     

The Influence of Retention Interval on the US Preexposure Effect: Changes in Contextual Blocking over Time

A number of studies manipulating the length of the interval between conditioning and testing indicate spontaneous recovery from overshadowing, suggesting that certain instances of overshadowing represent a deficit in memory retrieval rather than a failure of animals to form an association between the overshadowed stimulus and the US. The present series of experiments examined the influence of lengthening the retention interval on blocking, another stimulus selection phenomenon that is typically interpreted as an acquisition deficit. The results indicated that when subjects were tested shortly (3 days) after training conditioning to a taste blocked subsequent conditioning to an odor conditioned in compound with that taste (Experiment 1), whereas prior conditioning to an odor did not block subsequent conditioning to a taste conditioned in compound with that odor (Experiment 2). This pattern of results was essentially unchanged when testing occurred at a longer (21-day) retention interval. However, there was evidence of a US preexposure effect in Experiment 2 when subjects in the US ONLY control condition were tested at the 3-day retention interval, but not when testing occurred 21 days after conditioning. Experiments 3 and 4 examined whether this loss of the US preexposure effect over time might actually represent a change in the degree of contextual blocking as the retention interval is lengthened. Exposure to the conditioning context either during the interval between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of conditioning (Experiment 3) or prior to Phase 1 of conditioning (Experiment 4) alleviated this US preexposure effect suggesting that the loss of the US preexposure effect as the retention interval is lengthened observed in Experiment 2 is due to changes in the degree of blocking by contextual stimuli over time. The results are discussed in terms of differential susceptibility of forgetting of two functional roles played by a contextual stimuli in the current situation-context as a CS and context as a retrieval cue for other CS-US associations.     

The Importance of Context in the US Preexposure Effect in CTA: Novel versus Latently Inhibited Contextual Stimuli

Three experiments were conducted to examine the role of novel contextual stimuli in producing the unconditioned stimulus (US) preexposure effect. Experiment 1 demonstrated that novel contextual stimuli produce a significantly stronger US preexposure effect than familiar or “latently inhibited” contextual stimuli. Moreover, subjects preexposed in the presence of latently inhibited contextual cues failed to show a significant US preexposure effect. Experiments 2 and 3 attempted to provide evidence that the addition of a single novel stimulus to the latently inhibited context would result in a significantly stronger US preexposure effect than when no such novel cue was present. Experiment 3 was able to demonstrate this effect. Results are consistent with the Rescorla–Wagner (1972) model of conditioning.     

Some determinants of latent inhibition in human predictive learning

The present experiments assessed the effects of different manipulations between cue preexposure and cue-outcome pairings on latent inhibition (LI) in a predictive learning task with human participants. To facilitate LI, preexposure and acquisition with the target cues took place while participants performed a secondary task. Presentation of neither the target cues nor the target outcome was anticipated based on the instructions. Experiment 1 demonstrated the LI effect in the new experimental preparation. Experiment 2 analyzed the impact on LI of different activities that participants performed during the interval between preexposure and acquisition. Experiment 3 assessed LI as a function of changes in the secondary task cues made between preexposure and acquisition, namely presenting novel cues and reversing the cue-outcome contingencies. All of the manipulations in Experiments 2 and 3 resulted in a decrease in LI. The attenuation of LI by these manipulations challenges most current theories of learning and is best accommodated by Conditioned Attention Theory (Lubow, Weiner, & Schnur, 1981).     

Associative effects of US preexposure: modulation of conditioned responding by an excitatory training context

In two experiments we examined factors that contribute to retarded emergence of conditioned responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS) trained in a context in which unsignaled unconditioned stimuli (USs) had previously been administered. In both experiments water-deprived rats were used in a conditioned lick suppression task to measure the conditioned response elicitation potential of the CS and the training context. From Experiment 1 we determined that nonreinforced exposure to the excitatory context after US preexposure and prior to CS-US pairings in that context eliminated the conditioned response deficit observed on a subsequent test of the CS. The recovery from the US preexposure deficit was nearly as great in animals that received nonreinforced exposure to the excitatory training context after the CS-US pairings but prior to the ultimate test of the CS. From Experiment 2 we determined that the recovery induced by contextual deflation after CS training was specific to deflation of the context in which the CS was trained as opposed to another excitatory context. In total, these experiments suggest that context-US associations partially mask the expression of a learned CS-US association. These results are discussed in terms of recent models of conditioned response generation.     

Attenuation of latent inhibition after compound conditioning

Using a conditioned suppression procedure with rats, three experiments examined the effects of compound conditioning on the degree of latent inhibition. Experiment 1 suggested that latent inhibition of the preexposed target was not enhanced but rather attenuated when a second stimulus was presented in compound conditioning. Experiment 2 showed that a similar result was obtained when, in subjects given only compound conditioning, the salience of the target was reduced to the level where it was overshadowed by the second stimulus. Experiment 3 proved that addition of the second stimulus only during preexposure, or during both preexposure and conditioning, did not attenuate the latent inhibition to the target. These results are difficult to explain by any model of Pavlovian conditioning which assumes that both latent inhibition and overshadowing effects are a consequence of acquisition deà cit; other possible accounts are discussed.     

Delay-induced attenuation of latent inhibition with a conditioned emotional response depends on CS–US strength

Latent Inhibition (LI) attenuation when a long delay is introduced between acquisition and test phases has been repeatedly observed using aversive conditioning procedures (e.g., Aguado, Symonds, & Hall, 1994). This effect has been used as evidence to support those theories that consider LI to be the result of a retrieval failure. We designed three experiments intended to control for a possible effect of incubation of fear as a possible source of delay-induced attenuated LI. Specifically, we examined the effects of a retention interval between conditioning and testing stages on LI using a 3-stage conditioned emotional response procedure (preexposure, conditioning, and testing). Experiment 1 showed that the LI effect was completely abolished in the delayed testing condition. Experiment 2 evaluated whether a process of fear incubation, developed during the retention interval but obscured by a ceiling effect, produced the attenuation of LI. To this end, we reduced magnitude of conditioning by decreasing US intensity and number of acquisition trials. Experiment 3 directly assessed the relationship between CS–US strength and fear incubation. Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that the apparent reduction of LI after the delay was, at least partially, the result of an incubation effect that is a function of the strength of the CS–US association. The results are discussed with respect to their implications for the different theories of LI.     

Lithium-mediated disruptions of latent inhibition: Overshadowing by the unconditioned stimulus in flavor conditioning

In a series of experiments, the ability of a single lithium preexposure to disrupt CS effectiveness was assessed using a latent inhibition procedure. Lithium preexposure administered proximal (90 min) to a saccharin familiarization trial reduced latent inhibition whereas a similar administration more distal (360 min) to flavor familiarization failed to do so. Additional experiments demonstrated that this socalled “US overshadowing” effect was not attributable to sensitization (Experiment 2), excitatory backward conditioning (Experiment 3), or state dependency (Experiment 4). The implications of US overshadowing for proximal US-preexposure effects are discussed.     

The influence of flavor preexposure and test interval on conditioned taste aversions in the rat

The effects of flavor preexposure and test interval on conditioned taste aversions were examined in four experiments. In the first three experiments, prior experience with a flavor different from that used as a conditioned-stimulus (CS) produced attenuated aversions when testing occurred after a 1-day interval but not after a 21-day interval. Preexposure to the same stimulus used as a CS produced attenuated aversions at both 1- and 21-day intervals. In Experiment 4, a delay interval between flavor preexposure and conditioning eliminated the attenuating effect of preexposure, but only when different stimuli were used for preexposure and conditioning. These data could not be easily accounted for by contemporary interpretations of preexposure as an event that interferes with subsequent acquisition of a conditioned aversion. An alternative retrieval interference hypothesis was outlined.     

Analysis of the learned irrelevance effect in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning

In Experiments 1 and 2 rats received uncorrelated presentations of a light conditioned stimulus (CS) and a food unconditioned stimulus (US) on each day of a preexposure phase. Control subjects received the same number of USs during the first half of preexposure and the same number of CSs during the second. Uncorrelated preexposure retarded inhibitory conditioning. Experiment 3 showed, however, that the different patterns of US preexposure experienced by the two groups could in itself influence the course of subsequent inhibitory conditioning. When this factor was equated by restricting the uncorrelated treatment to the first half of the pre-exposure phase (Experiment 2) or by extending the control treatment throughout the phase (Experiment 4) it was found that uncorrelated preexposure retarded excitatory conditioning, but facilitated inhibitory conditioning. This outcome challenges an interpretation in terms of the concept of learned irrelevance, which predicts that uncorrelated preexposure should retard both forms of conditioning.     

The influence of word shading and word length on eye movements during reading

In three experiments rats were given short or long preexposure (4 or 10 sessions) to two compound flavours, AX and BX, according to an intermixed or a blocked schedule. Following preexposure, aversion conditioning trials were given with AX as the conditioned stimulus (CS). In Experiments 1 and 2, retardation and summation tests were then carried out to assess the inhibitory properties of B (an Espinet procedure). In Experiment 3, test trials evaluated generalization from AX to BX (the standard perceptual learning procedure). The results showed that B performed as an inhibitor of the unconditioned stimulus (US; an Espinet effect) only after long intermixed preexposure, whereas a reliable perceptual learning effect was observed both after short and after long preeexposure. The observation that B had no detectable inhibitory properties after short preexposure casts doubt on the suggestion that inhibitory learning is responsible for perceptual learning after brief exposure to AX and BX.     

The Espinet and the perceptual learning effects in flavour aversion conditioning: do they depend on a common inhibitory mechanism?

In three experiments rats were given short or long preexposure (4 or 10 sessions) to two compound flavours, AX and BX, according to an intermixed or a blocked schedule. Following preexposure, aversion conditioning trials were given with AX as the conditioned stimulus (CS). In Experiments 1 and 2, retardation and summation tests were then carried out to assess the inhibitory properties of B (an Espinet procedure). In Experiment 3, test trials evaluated generalization from AX to BX (the standard perceptual learning procedure). The results showed that B performed as an inhibitor of the unconditioned stimulus (US; an Espinet effect) only after long intermixed preexposure, whereas a reliable perceptual learning effect was observed both after short and after long preeexposure. The observation that B had no detectable inhibitory properties after short preexposure casts doubt on the suggestion that inhibitory learning is responsible for perceptual learning after brief exposure to AX and BX.     

Amphetamine, conditioned stimulus, and nondebilitating preshock effects on activity and avoidance: further evidence for interactions between associative and nonassociative changes

A literature survey and preliminary experiments with rats on the consequences of shock preexposure on subsequent activity and escape or avoidance showed the need for further work on the interactions between nondebilitating preshock and various test and treatment factors. The two main experiments used 16 preexposure conditions, namely, presence or absence of unavoidable punishment (36 shocks of 2.5 mA and 5 sec subdivided in three daily sessions), a light CS, a central partition in the shuttle-box, and dl-amphetamine sulfate (1 mg/kg ip 15 min before each session). In both experiments the four factors studied exerted more than additive effects on activity in preexposure sessions, leading to a very high frequency of crossing in the CS-shock-no-partition-drug condition. Upon retesting for activity (Experiment 1) suppression of locomotion by prior shock was less marked in animals preexposed to CS-US pairings in the absence of partition, while proactive amphetamine effects consisted mainly of a progressive increase of activity over successive retest sessions in the groups not preshocked. Upon retesting for light-cued, two-way avoidance acquisition (Experiment 2) the groups preexposed to US only were mostly retarded, while those preexposed to paired CS and US were mostly facilitated. Other changes, including drug pretreatment consequences, were negligible or unsystematic, but in general the data showed that the effects of various preexposure conditions on activity could not account for those on avoidance. Overall, it appears that the interactions between nondebilitating preshock and other test and treatment factors can be further exploited to clarify the respective roles of various associative and nonassociative mechanisms in modulation of activity and adaptive responding in aversive situations.