Contextual control of negative transfer produced by prior CS-US pairings |
| |
| Authors: | Dale Swartzentruber Mark E. Bouton |
| |
| Affiliation: | 1. Social and Behavioral Sciences Division, Yale School of Public Health, New Haven, CT;2. Department of Clinical Health Psychology, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada;3. U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs National Center for Posttraumatic Stress Disorder, VA Connecticut Healthcare System, West Haven, CT;4. Department of Psychiatry, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT;1. Departments of Psychiatry, Family Medicine, and Public Health, University of California San Diego, San Diego, CA;2. Institute of Gerontology and Department of Healthcare Sciences, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI;3. Department of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Center of Aging, University of Miami, Miami, FL;4. Department of Psychology, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA;5. Graduate School of Public Health, San Diego State University, San Diego, CA;6. Department of Epidemiology and Population Health, Albert Einstein College of Medicine, Bronx, NY;7. Institute for Minority Health Research, University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, IL;8. Department of Psychology, University of Miami, Coral Gables, FL;9. Department of Epidemiology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN;10. Collaborative Studies Coordinating Center, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, NC;11. School of Social Work, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, Urbana, IL;12. Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI |
| |
| Abstract: | When a conditioned stimulus (CS) is repeatedly paired with a weak unconditioned stimulus (US) prior to being paired with a stronger US in a second conditioning phase, interference, or negative transfer, is often observed during Phase 2. Two conditioned suppression experiments with rat subjects examined the effect of a context switch between phases in this “Hall-Pearce negative transfer paradigm.” In Experiment 1, negative transfer was obtained when the context remained the same for both phases, but there was no evidence of negative transfer when the context was switched between phases. Experiment 2 was designed to control for familiarity with the Phase 2 context, and showed that a context switch between phases again attenuated negative transfer. The effect of context on negative transfer was also similar to its effect on latent inhibition produced under comparable conditions. The results are not consistent with a model proposed by J. M. Pearce and G. Hall (Psychological Review, 87, 532–555, 1980), which ascribes no major role to the context in this situation, but are consistent with A. R. Wagner's (In S. H. Hulse, H. Fowler, & W. K. Honig, Eds., Cognitive Processes in Animal Behavior, pp. 177–209. Hillsdale NJ: Erlbaum, 1978) short-term memory model of conditioning, or with the view that contexts may signal specific CS-US relations. The results extend previous research on other interference paradigms, like latent inhibition and extinction, where context may play a similar role. |
| |
| Keywords: | |
| 本文献已被 ScienceDirect 等数据库收录！ |
|
