Latent inhibition: The effects of ITI and CS intensity during preexposure

Two experiments are reported which test the effects of intertrial interval (ITI) and stimulus intensity during nonreinforced preexposure in the latent inhibition paradigm. In Experiment 1, using mice in an escape-avoidance task, latent inhibition was a direct function of the duration of stimulus intertrial interval during preexposure. In Experiment 2, using rats in a CER task, latent inhibition was a direct function of stimulus intensity during preexposure. These findings are discussed in terms of equivalent effects which have been reported in the habituation paradigm.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Spontaneous configuring in conditioned flavor aversion

A series of experiments investigated spontaneous configuring using the conditioned flavor aversion paradigm with rat subjects. In Experiment 1, extended training of a two-flavor compound stimulus did not produce spontaneous differentiation of conditioned responding to that compound and its elements. In Experiment 2 we found that extended nonreinforced exposure to a compound stimulus generated spontaneous element-compound differentiation when the elements were later conditioned. Rats that received extended preexposure to the compound showed less conditioned responding to the compound than to either of its elements. However, rats that had not received preexposure to the compound showed greater conditioned responding to the compound than to either of its elements (summation). In Experiment 3, nonreinforced preexposure to the compound stimulus prior to minimal reinforced compound training produced spontaneous compound-element differentiation, but extended reinforced compound training eliminated that differentiation. In Experiment 4, extended partial reinforcement training with a compound produced differentiation of the compound from its elements. Implications of these data for the mechanisms responsible for spontaneous configuring and for the summation assumptions common to most learning theories are discussed.     

Stimulus Preexposure, Comparison, and Changes in the Associability of Common Stimulus Features

In four experiments, rats received preexposure either to both of two compound flavours (AX and BX), or to just one (BX). Experiment 1 demonstrated a perceptual learning effect, showing that, for animals given preexposure to both flavours, an aversion conditioned to AX generalized only poorly to BX. Subsequent experiments assessed the properties of the common feature, X. Experiment 3 showed that the two preexposure treatments did not differ in the extent to which they produced habituation of the neophobia evoked by X. Experiment 2 showed that conditioning to X proceeded more rapidly in subjects given preexposure to both AX and BX than in subjects preexposed to BX alone. In Experiment 4, a similar effect was found when the elements of the compounds were presented serially. It is concluded that the perceptual learning effect of Experiment 1 occurs in spite of the fact that preexposure to two stimuli tends to maintain the associability of their common elements.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

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.     

Effects of preexposure on stimulus discrimination: an investigation of the mechanisms responsible for human perceptual learning

The effect of preexposure on human perceptual learning was investigated in four experiments. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants were preexposed to one pair of visual stimuli on an intermixed schedule (AX/BX) and one on a blocked schedule (CX_DX). The ability to discriminate between AX and BX and between CX and DX was then assessed by examining the extent to which key presses assigned to each member of a stimulus pair generalized to the other member (Experiment 1a) and by looking at the accuracy of same-different responses (Experiment 1b). Stimuli were more easily discriminated following intermixed than following blocked preexposure on both the generalization and same-different tasks. This suggests that two stimuli are more perceptually distinct after intermixed preexposure. Experiments 2a and 2b investigated the mechanisms responsible for perceptual learning using same-different tasks. The results support the suggestion that the enhanced discrimination observed after intermixed preexposure is due to increases in the salience of the unique elements.     

Effects of stimulus preexposure on omission responding and omission-produced dishabituation of the human electrodermal response

As a test of Wagner's (1981) theory of habituation, three experiments examined the effects of stimulus preexposure on electrodermal responding to the absence of a stimulus and on omission-produced dishabituation. The general procedure for all experiments consisted of a preexposure phase in which one stimulus (S1) was presented 20 times, followed by a pairing phase in which S1 was followed by a second event, S2. After a number of S1-S2 pairings, S2 was omitted for one trial and was then represented following S1 on the next trial. Electrodermal activity was measured in all experiments, and in Experiments 2 and 3, a measure of expectancy of S2 in the presence of S1 was also obtained to provide a putative index of S2 priming by S1. Experiments 1 (N=48) and 2 (N=72) employed 15 S1-S2 pairings prior to S2 omission. Significant omission responding and dishabituation to S2 were obtained in both experiments. However, omission effects were not influenced by preexposure presentations of S1. Experiment 3, on the other hand, demonstrated that omission responding and dishabituation were attenuated by 20 preexposures of S1 when only 4 S1-S2 pairings were employed. In addition, Experiments 2 and 3 revealed that although expectation of S2 developed as a function of S1-S2 pairings, it too was reduced by preexposure to S1. Only Experiment 3 provided preexposure effects that are consistent with Wagner's (1981) theory.     

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.     

Latent inhibition experiments with goldfish (Carassius auratus)

Evidence of latent inhibition was sought in a series of experiments with goldfish. In Experiment 1, goldfish were given nonreinforced preexposure to a color that subsequently predicted shock in an activity conditioning situation; their performance did not differ from that of control animals preexposed to a markedly different color. In Experiment 2, a group of goldfish given nonreinforced preexposure to a tone and an unstimulated control group were trained in an appetitive situation, with the tone serving either as a conditioned excitor or as a conditioned inhibitor. Preexposure had no significant effect in the conditioned excitation training, but it reduced the level of responding both to the positive stimulus and to the negative compound in the conditioned inhibition training. In Experiments 3 and 4, classical aversive conditioning was studied in the shuttle box. In Experiment 3, excitatory conditioning to a color was found to be impaired (relative to the performance of nonpreexposed control animals) as much by nonreinforced preexposure to the training color as by nonreinforced preexposure to a markedly different color; substantial variation in amount of preexposure was without significant effect. In the conditioned inhibition training of Experiment 4, animals with nonreinforced preexposure responded less than did unstimulated control animals both to the positive stimulus and to the negative compound. The results for goldfish can be understood on the assumption that the effect of preexposure in these animals is simply to reduce general responsiveness or level of arousal.     

Effects of preexposure on stimulus discrimination: An investigation of the mechanisms responsible for human perceptual learning

The effect of preexposure on human perceptual learning was investigated in four experiments. In Experiments 1a and 1b, participants were preexposed to one pair of visual stimuli on an intermixed schedule (AX/BX) and one on a blocked schedule (CX_DX). The ability to discriminate between AX and BX and between CX and DX was then assessed by examining the extent to which key presses assigned to each member of a stimulus pair generalized to the other member (Experiment 1a) and by looking at the accuracy of same–different responses (Experiment 1b). Stimuli were more easily discriminated following intermixed than following blocked preexposure on both the generalization and same–different tasks. This suggests that two stimuli are more perceptually distinct after intermixed preexposure. Experiments 2a and 2b investigated the mechanisms responsible for perceptual learning using same–different tasks. The results support the suggestion that the enhanced discrimination observed after intermixed preexposure is due to increases in the salience of the unique elements.     

Delay-induced super-latent inhibition as a function of order of exposure to two flavours prior to compound conditioning

A number of recent conditioned taste aversion (CTA) experiments have demonstrated a super-latent inhibition (LI) effect—namely, a time-induced increase in the effects of stimulus preexposure when the interval between acquisition and test is spent in a context that is different from the other experimental contexts. Two CTA experiments with rats were conducted to examine the role of primacy in producing super-LI. In Experiment 1, one of two flavours was pre-exposed, following which a second flavour was preexposed. After the second preexposure, animals were conditioned by pairing a compound of the two preexposed flavours with LiCl. The test stage was conducted 1 or 21 days after conditioning, with the interval being spent in either the same or different contexts. In the test, animals were confronted with two bottles, each with one of the two preexposed flavours. Super-LI was obtained only for the first preexposed flavour in the 21-day delay group that spent the interval in a different context. Experiment 2 was designed to ensure that the effects in Experiment 1 represented LI, and to control for order of presentation of the flavours and time between preexposure and acquisition. The results replicated those of Experiment 1. The two experiments support the importance of primacy in the general super-LI experiment where CS-alone preexposure precedes CS-US.     

Preexposure effects in the spatial domain: Dissociation between latent inhibition and perceptual learning

In 4 experiments, rats were given intermixed or blocked preexposure to an array of landmarks that subsequently defined the location of a hidden goal in a Morris pool task. Previous research has shown that intermixed preexposure to pairs of adjacent landmarks retards learning whereas preexposure to individual landmarks facilitates subsequent learning (J. Prados, V. D. Chamizo, & N. J. Mackintosh, 1999). Accordingly, in Experiment 1, intermixed and blocked preexposure to pairs of adjacent landmarks was found to retard learning. In Experiment 2, however, a scheduling effect was found: Rats given intermixed preexposure to the individual landmarks learned faster than rats given blocked or no preexposure. Experiment 3 showed that intermixed (but not blocked) preexposure to pairs of landmarks resulted in a facilitatory effect when preexposure and test were carried out in different contexts. Experiment 4 replicated within a single experiment the main results observed in Experiments 1 and 3. This pattern of results suggests that intermixed preexposure engages learning processes other than latent inhibition that facilitate subsequent learning of the navigation task.     

Attention and relative novelty in human perceptual learning

Four experiments examined the role of attention in human perceptual learning. In Experiment 1, participants were preexposed to a pair of visual (checkerboard) stimuli AX and BX, with common elements X and unique features A and B. A same-different task was then used to assess discrimination of AX and BX and a pair of control stimuli, CY and DY. In addition, participants' eye movements were recorded to assess the role of attentional processes. The results showed that preexposure enhanced discrimination between AX and BX. Furthermore, participants showed greater attention to the preexposed unique features A and B than to the novel unique features C and D, as measured by the eye gaze monitor. Experiments 2 and 3 examined the prediction that perceptual learning is due to the relative familiarity of the common and unique stimulus features. Experiment 4 replicated the intermixed-blocked effect and showed that the way in which AX and BX are presented is also important for perceptual learning. The results generally support the idea that intermixed preexposure to AX and BX increases attention to the unique stimulus features A and B. Some aspects of the results are consistent with a relative novelty account, whereas others implicate a high-level attentional process that is not driven by stimulus novelty.     

Latent inhibition of US signal value.

Three experiments with rats examined the effects of preexposure to an unconditioned stimulus (US; a single food pellet) on the subsequent ability of that US to effectively signal the delivery of three food pellets during a US-US conditioning procedure. In Experiment 1, latent inhibition (LI) rats showed attenuated conditioning, compared to control (C) rats, when a single food pellet, delivered 10 minutes into a session, was followed by three additional pellets. In preexposure, one pellet had been delivered 10 minutes into each session (in group LI), or placed into the magazine at the beginning of each session (in group C). Experiment 2 showed that this effect was evident when the conditions of preexposure matched those of conditioning for group C, and Experiment 3 showed that the difference between groups LI and C was not a product of context conditioning, or latent inhibition to the noise of the feeder in group LI. Implications of these results for theories of latent inhibition are considered.