Recent Learned Helplessness/Irrelevance Research in Japan: Conceptual Framework and Some Experiments on Learned Irrelevance

In Section 1, a conceptual framework within which to study learned helplessness (LH), learned irrelevance (LI) and the related phenomena is introduced. In Section 2, three rat experiments on LI conducted in our laboratory using a conditioned suppression of licking preparation are introduced. In Experiment 1, the phenomena of LI and general LI were confirmed. In Experiment 2, random presentations of CST/US were found to interfere with subsequent initial excitatory conditioning to CSL under random CSL/US presentations. In Experiment 3, pre-paired presentations of CSN or CST with US before random CST/US presentations was found to have an attenuating effect on the development of general LI.     

A comparison of latent inhibition and learned irrelevance pre-exposure effects in rabbit and human eyeblink conditioning

The learning of an association between a CS and a US can be retarded by unreinforced presentations of the CS alone (termed latent inhibition or LI) or by un-correlated presentations of the CS and US (termed learned irrelevance or LIRR). In rabbit eyeblink conditioning, there have been some recent failures to replicate LI. LIRR has been hypothesized as producing a stronger retardation effect than LI based on both empirical studies and computational models. In the work presented here, we examined the relative strength of LI and LIRR in eyeblink conditioning in rabbits and humans. In both species, a number of pre-exposure trials sufficient to produce LIRR failed to produce LI (Experiments 1 & 3). Doubling the number of CS pre-exposures did produce LI in rabbits (Experiment 2), but not in humans (Experiment 4). LI was demonstrated in humans only after manipulations including an increased inter-trial interval or ITI (Experiment 5). Overall, it appears that LIRR is a more easily producible pre-exposure retardation effect than LI for eyeblink conditioning in both rabbits and humans. Several theoretical mechanisms for LI including the conditioned attention theory, stimulus compression, novelty, and the switching theory are discussed as possible explanations for the differences between LIRR and LI. Overall, future work involving testing the neural substrates of pre-exposure effects may benefit from the use of LIRR rather than LI.     

Is the context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance?

In three experiments, rats were pre-exposed either to uncorrelated presentations of a light and sucrose pellets (group CS/US) or to equivalent presentations of the light and pellets in separate sessions (control). In Experiment 1, subsequent conditioning to the light proceeded more slowly in group CS/US than in the control group, whether this conditioning was excitatory, with the light signalling the delivery of pellets, or inhibitory, with the light signalling their absence. Bonardi and Hall (1996) have argued that this learned irrelevance effect may be reducible to latent inhibition, which would be stronger in group CS/US because they are both pre-exposed and conditioned to the CS in the presence of traces of previous USs occurring in the same session. This analysis implies that group CS/US should have conditioned more rapidly to the CS than controls on the first trial of each session in Experiment 1, but this did not happen. It also implies that the learned irrelevance effect should be reversed if conditioning trials are given at a rate of one per day . Experiments 2 and 3 found no support for this prediction. We conclude that learned irrelevance effects cannot always be reduced to latent inhibition.     

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.     

A Comparison of Latent Inhibition and Learned Irrelevance Pre-Exposure Effects in Rabbit and Human Eyeblink Conditioning

The learning of an association between a CS and a US can be retarded by unreinforced presentations of the CS alone (termed latent inhibition or LI) or by un-correlated presentations of the CS and US (termed learned irrelevance or LIRR). In rabbit eyeblink conditioning, there have been some recent failures to replicate LI. LIRR has been hypothesized as producing a stronger retardation effect than LI based on both empirical studies and computational models. In the work presented here, we examined the relative strength of LI and LIRR in eyeblink conditioning in rabbits and humans. In both species, a number of preexposure trials sufficient to produce LIRR failed to produce LI (Experiments 1 & 3). Doubling the number of CS pre-exposures did produce LI in rabbits (Experiment 2), but not in humans (Experiment 4). LI was demonstrated in humans only after manipulations including an increased inter-trial interval or ITI (Experiment 5). Overall, it appears that LIRR is a more easily producible pre-exposure retardation effect than LI for eyeblink conditioning in both rabbits and humans. Several theoretical mechanisms for LI including the conditioned attention theory, stimulus compression, novelty, and the switching theory are discussed as possible explanations for the differences between LIRR and LI. Overall, future work involving testing the neural substrates of pre-exposure effects may benefit from the use of LIRR rather than LI.     

Latent inhibition and learned helplessness in children: Similarities and differences

Four experiments used a common set of procedures to investigate the occurrence and the generalization of learned helplessness (LH) and latent inhibition (LI) in 10- to 11-year-old children. In Experiment 1, preexposure to response-outcome independence impaired performance (i.e., LH) on two subsequent tests: The first was similar to the preexposure situation, the second was not. Moreover, LH occurred whether preexposure involved positive or negative feedback. On the other hand, noncontingent stimulus preexposure did not impair subsequent performance, i.e., LI was not obtained in the first experiment. Experiment 2 replicated the LH findings of Experiment 1: LH occurred following preexposure to response-independent feedback, regardless of whether that feedback was positive or negative, and LH generalized to a situation that was different from the preexposure situation. In addition, the stimulus preexposure procedures of Experiment 2 were embedded in a “masking” task and, under these conditions, LI was obtained. Nevertheless, LI did not generalize to a testing situation that was different from the preexposure situation. Experiment 3 demonstrated that noncontingent stimulus preexposure impairs performance relative to a nonpreexposed control group, that the effect is dependent upon masking, that masking alone produces no performance decrement, and that LI is, indeed, stimulus specific. In Experiment 4, preexposure to response-outcome independence impaired subsequent performance on similar and dissimilar tests whether feedback was consistently positive, consistently negative, or randomly positive and negative over trials. In addition, stimulus preexposure produced LI only under conditions of masking and even then, LI was not evident in novel test situations. The results are discussed in terms of common and different mechanisms underlying the LI and LH phenomena.     

Retardation of autoshaping following pretraining with unpredictable food: Effects of changing the context between pretraining and testing

In Experiment 1, pigeons exposed to US ONLY pretraining were observed to be retarded in the acquisition of autoshaping relative to naive controls; however, gross changes in contextual stimuli between pretraining and testing alleviated the retardation effect. In Experiment 2, groups of pigeons exposed to CS ONLY, US ONLY, or random CS-US presentations (TRC) were tested for the acquisition of autoshaping. The US ONLY and TRC groups were retarded relative to naive controls. The context change manipulation eliminated the US ONLY retardation effect and attenuated, but did not eliminate, the TRC retardation effect. Context blocking accounts for the US ONLY effect and contributes to the TRC effect; however, context-independent retardation following TRC pretraining suggests the operation of the learned irrelevance cognition.     

Modeling Hierarchical Versus Random Exposure Schedules in Pavlovian Fear Extinction: No Evidence for Differential Fear Outcomes

In exposure therapy, the client can either be confronted with the fear-eliciting situations in a hierarchical way or in a random way. In the current study we developed a procedure to investigate the effects of hierarchical versus random exposure on long-term fear responding in the laboratory. Using a fear conditioning procedure, one stimulus (CS +) was paired with an electric shock (US), whereas another stimulus was not paired with the shock (CS-). The next day, participants underwent extinction training including presentations of the CS-, CS + and a series of morphed stimuli between the CS- and CS +. In the hierarchical extinction condition (HE; N = 32), participants were first presented with the CS-, subsequently with the morph most similar to the CS-, then with the morph most similar to that one, and so forth, until reaching the CS +. In the random extinction condition (RE; N = 32), the same stimuli were presented but in a random order. Fear responding to the CS +, CS- and a new generalization stimulus (GS) was measured on the third day. Higher expectancy violation, t(62) = -2.67, p = .01, physiological arousal, t(62) = -2.08, p = .04, and variability in US-expectancy ratings, t(62) = -2.25, p = .03, were observed in the RE condition compared to the HE condition, suggesting the validity of this novel procedure. However, no differences between the RE and HE condition were found in fear responding as tested one day later, F(1, 62) < 1. In conclusion, we did not find evidence for differential long-term fear responding in modeling hierarchical versus random exposure in Pavlovian fear extinction.     

A neutral odor may become a sexual incentive through classical conditioning in male rats

A neutral olfactory stimulus was employed as CS in a series of experiments with a sexually receptive female as UCS and the execution of an intromission as the UCR. Each experimental session lasted until the male ejaculated. The time the experimental subject spent in a zone adjacent to the source of the olfactory stimulus during the 10 s of CS presentation and the latency to enter that area were employed as measures of conditioning. In Experiment 1, the CS was always presented at the same location in the conditioning arena, bordering the site where the female became accessible. Conditioning resulted in a gradual increase in the time spent in the CS zone as well as in a reduction of the latency to enter it. In Experiment 2, the site of presentation of the CS was varied randomly from one side of the conditioning arena to another in order to assure that the subjects indeed associated the CS and not a particular location with access to a female. Again, the time spent in the CS zone increased and the latency to enter it was reduced by conditioning. Furthermore, after conditioning the CS was approached more than a neutral odor in a different context. In a third experiment one group of animals was randomly exposed to the CS to control for non-associative effects on performance. Another group was conditioned as in Experiment 2. The random presentation of the CS failed to enhance approach, while the paired UCS-CS had effects identical to those found in Experiment 2. In the last experiment, an olfactory CS⁻ was included. The CS⁺ and CS⁻ were presented in random order at random locations. Both the time spent in the CS⁺ and CS⁻ zones was increased, while the latency to enter the zone was significantly reduced only for the CS⁺. These data suggest that the subjects had partially learned to discriminate between the CS⁺ and the CS⁻, at most. The procedure employed in Experiments 2 and 3 seems to be the most promising for studies of sexual conditioning in male rats.     

Learned irrelevance and retrospective correlation learning

In 1973 Mackintosh reported an interference effect that he called learned irrelevance in which exposure to uncorrelated (CS/US) presentation of the unconditional stimulus (US) and the conditioned stimulus (CS) interfered with future Pavlovian conditioning. It has been argued that there is no specific interference effect in learned irrelevance; rather the interference is the sum of independent CS and US exposure effects (CS + US). We review previous research on this question and report two new experiments. We conclude that learned irrelevance is a consequence of a contingency learning and a specific learned irrelevance mechanism. Moreover even the “independent exposure controls”, used in previous experiments to support the CS and US exposure account, provide support for the correlation learning process.     

Learned Irrelevance Is Not the Sum of Exposure to CS and US

In three experiments hungry rats received appetitive conditioning trials with a light that signalled the delivery of sucrose solution. In Experiment 1, prior exposure to uncorrelated presentations of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) retarded conditioning significantly more than did prior exposure to the CS alone. In Experiments 2 and 3, groups exposed to uncorrelated presentations of the CS and US within the same session conditioned significantly more slowly than groups given separate sessions of exposure to the CS followed by sessions of exposure to the US (or vice versa). Some part of the learned irrelevance effect depends on exposure to a zero correlation between the CS and US, perhaps because this promotes learning that the CS predicts no change in the probability of the US.     

Associative changes with a random CS-US relationship

Three experiments examined conditioned magazine approach in rats when a positive unconditioned stimulus (US) bore a random relation to a conditioned stimulus (CS). Experiment 1 found that over the course of conditioning the CS initially elevated responding relative to the baseline but then lost the power to do so. Transfer tests revealed that a CS-US association developed early and persisted despite the decline in magazine responding. Experiment 2 confirmed the persistence of CS-US associations and found them to be more substantial when a different US occurred during the CS than in its absence. In Experiment 3, when the situation was exposed to US-alone presentations prior to introducing the CS, there was little evidence that a subsequent random relation between the CS and US produced an association between them. These results agree with those of blocking and overshadowing experiments using discrete CSs and support an interpretation of the random procedure in terms of competition between the background and CS for conditioning.     

Associability of a previously conditioned stimulus as a function of qualitative changes in the US

Hall and Pearce (1979) reported retarded manifestation of conditioned responding to repeated CS-strong shock pairings as a result of prior CS-weak shock pairings. These authors suggested that a latent inhibition (LI)-like process reduced the associability of the CS during weak shock conditioning despite excitatory associations between CS and weak shock being formed. The present experiments examined the possibility that the negative transfer from CS-weak shock conditioning in Stage 1 to CS-strong shock conditioning in Stage 2 observed by Hall and Pearce was due at least in part to the similarity between weak and strong shock rather than, or in addition to, a general loss of CS associability. Specifically, the transfer of decreased associability to conditioning with a dissimilar US was investigated. Consistent with Hall and Pearce, who gave multiple training trials in Stage 2, Experiment 1 found the development of conditioned responding owing to a single CS-strong shock pairing in Stage 2 to be retarded by prior CS-weak shock pairings and compared this effect to conventional LI. In Experiment 2, partial attenuation of the negative transfer following CS-weak shock was obtained by substituting ice water immersion for strong shock, that is, by making the strong US qualitatively dissimilar from the weak US. In contrast, conventional LI resulting from preconditioning CS-only exposures was equivalent for strong shock in Experiment 1 and ice water immersion in Experiment 2. A possible mechanism for the sensitivity to qualitative US changes of the observed negative transfer is discussed.     

Attentional mechanisms in learned predictiveness

Cues that reliably predict an outcome in an initial phase of training (Phase 1) are learned faster in a second phase of training (Phase 2) than cues that were unreliable in Phase 1. This result is observed despite objectively equal relationships between the cues and the outcomes in Phase 2, and consequently constitutes a nonnormative bias in learning. The present experiments sought to confirm that this learned predictiveness effect is the product of attentional processes (Experiment 1), and to test further whether these processes are under voluntary control or are automatic in nature (Experiment 2). In addition to the usual outcome prediction measure, eye-gaze behavior was also monitored. The results indicated an important role for top-down strategic attentional processes in the learned predictiveness task. In contrast, no evidence for an automatic attentional bias was found.     

Latent inhibition: A trace conditioning phenomenon?

An informal model of latent inhibition (LI), the trace hypothesis, is described. This hypothesis holds that preexposure (PE) to the to-be-conditioned stimulus alters the salience (associability) of the CS such that only the onset and initial segments, but not the later segments, are capable of supporting conditioning when paired with a US. Thus, LI is effectively a trace conditioning phenomenon. Four experiments used rats and a one-trial fear-conditioning task to test predictions which stem from this hypothesis. Experiment 1 showed conditioning performance decreased as trace intervals increased between 0 and 12 s, thus demonstrating the sensitivity of this task to trace intervals proposed by the trace hypothesis to produce LI. Consistent with the trace hypothesis, LI was found to be an increasing function of the CS duration (Experiment 2), the number of PE trials (Experiment 3), and the US onset during a 15-s CS (Experiment 4). These data are somewhat problematic for several explanations of LI, but, in general, the trace hypothesis extends extant explanations by focusing on changes in salience within a given presentation of the CS.     

Subjective,physiological, and behavioural responses towards evaluatively conditioned stimuli

Evaluative Conditioning (EC) is commonly defined as the change in liking of a stimulus (conditioned stimulus, CS) due to its pairings with an affective unconditioned stimulus (US). In Experiment 1, we investigated effects of repeated stimulus pairings on affective responses, i.e. valence and arousal ratings, pupil size, and duration estimation. After repeatedly pairing the CSs with affective USs, a consistent pattern of affective responses emerged: The CS_negative was rated as being more negative and more arousing, resulted in larger pupils, and was temporally overestimated compared to the CS_neutral. In Experiment 2, the influence of a mere instruction about the contingency between a CS and US on affective responses was examined. After mere instruction about upcoming pairings between the CS and US, subjective ratings also changed, but there was neither evidence for differential pupillary responses nor for differential temporal processing. The results indicate that EC via pairings or instructions can change the affective responses towards formerly neutral stimuli and introduce pupil size as a physiological measure in EC research. However, Experiment 2 suggests that there might be moderating factors based on the type of EC procedure involved.     

Blocking and unconditioned response diminution in human classical autonomic conditioning

Four experiments examined blocking and UR diminution in human SCR conditioning. In Experiment 1, CS_X was conditioned in compound with previously conditioned CS_A, in one group, or in a compound with another novel stimulus, CS_N, in an additional group. UR diminution occurred, but there was no post-compound difference in CRs in the two groups and no difference in responding to CS_X and CS_A following equal training on each, i.e., no blocking. The correlation between blocking and UR diminution was not significant. In Experiment 2, two groups received a blocking procedure, but one was tested on CS_X and one on CS_A. UR diminution occurred, but there were no post-compound CR or UR differences. There was again no within-subjects blocking effect. The correlation between blocking and UR diminution was not significant, but this correlation was significant when data from Experiments 1 and 2 were combined. In Experiment 3, a differential conditioning procedure was used, followed by reinforcement of two compounds, one with CS_A+ and one with CS_A-. One subgroup was tested on CS_A+ and CS_A- with reinforcement; another was tested without reinforcement. UR diminution occurred, and there was significant blocking, but only after two nonreinforced tests. Blocking and UR diminution were significantly correlated. In Experiment 4, four groups received compound conditioning after initial training with CS_A. The compound contained CS_X and CS_A for three groups and two novel CSs for the fourth. Ten nonreinforced test trials were run. The three blocking groups received two CS_As plus eight CS_Xs, four CS_As plus six CS_Xs, or all CS_Xs. The fourth group received ten nonblocked CS_Xs. CR magnitude to blocked CS_X was significantly smaller than to nonblocked CS_X during the last six test trials, but not initially. Blocking and UR diminution were not correlated, in disagreement with the first three studies. The results indicated that repeated nonreinforced test trials are needed for blocking to be observed in this preparation. The proposition that blocking and UR diminution are both due to reduced processing of the US received only partial support.     

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.     

Superlatent inhibition and spontaneous recovery: differential effects of pre- and postconditioning CS-alone presentations after long delays in different contexts

In two pairs of three-stage conditioned taste aversion experiments, we examined the effects of delay interval (1 or 21 days) between the second and third stages, and of context in which the animals spent the delay (same as or different from the context of the other stages) on latent inhibition (LI) and spontaneous recovery following extinction. In the LI experiments (Experiments 1A and 1B), the first stage comprised nonreinforced presentations to saccharin or to water. In the second stage, rats were conditioned by saccharin paired with LiCl. In the extinction experiments (Experiments 2A and 2B), the order of the stages was reversed. For all experiments, Stage 3, the test stage, consisted of three presentations of saccharin alone. There was a super-LI effect in the saccharin-preexposed group that spent the 21-day delay in the different context (Experiment 1A). When the delay was spent in the same context, there was no difference in the amount of LI between the short- and long-delay groups (Experiment 1B). Conversely, there was a spontaneous recovery effect in the long-delay/same-context group (Experiment 2B), but not in the long-delay/different-context group (Experiment 2A). The pattern of results, incompatible with current explanations of delay-induced changes in memory performance, was interpreted in terms of an interaction between the delay conditions (same or different delay context), which modulate the extinction of previously acquired context-CS-nothing associations (during CS-alone presentations), and primacy effects.     

A Behavioural Preparation for the Study of Human Pavlovian Conditioning

Conditioned suppression is a useful technique for assessing whether subjects have learned a CS-US association, but it is difficult to use in humans because of the need for an aversive US. The purpose of this research was to develop a non-aversive procedure that would produce suppression. Subjects learned to press the space bar of a computer as part of a video game, but they had to stop pressing whenever a visual US appeared, or they would lose points. In Experiment 1, we used an A+/B- discrimination design: The US always followed Stimulus A and never followed Stimulus B. Although no information about the existence of CSs was given to the subjects, suppression ratio results showed a discrimination learning curve-that is, subjects learned to suppress responding in anticipation of the US when Stimulus A was present but not during the presentations of Stimulus B. Experiment 2 explored the potential of this preparation by using two different instruction sets and assessing post-experimental judgements of CS A and CS B in addition to suppression ratios. The results of these experiments suggest that conditioned suppression can be reliably and conveniently used in the human laboratory, providing a bridge between experiments on animal conditioning and experiments on human judgements of causality.