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.