Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-ttngx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-15T15:08:40.663Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

6 - Associative and nonassociative processes in latent inhibition: an elaboration of the Pearce–Hall model

from Current topics in latent inhibition research

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2010

Robert Lubow
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Ina Weiner
Affiliation:
Tel-Aviv University
Get access

Summary

Background

The analysis of latent inhibition to be developed in this chapter had its origins in the attempt to study a (seemingly) quite different phenomenon – the acquired distinctiveness of cues. James (1890) had suggested that similar cues could be rendered more discriminable by training in which each became linked with a very different associate. The idea was taken up by Lawrence (1949) in his classic experiments with rats, and the 1950s and 1960s saw a rush of experiments (reviewed by Hall,1991) exploring the phenomenon with human subjects. A theoretical account of the effect (based on that of Sutherland & Mackintosh, 1971) was put forward by Mackintosh (1975). He proposed that the representation of any cue has a given level of associability (represented, usually, by the symbol α) but that the value of the parameter α can be changed by experience. When a cue predicts a consequence reliably (or, at least does so more reliably than other cues that might be present) its α value increases; when it predicts a consequence no better than other cues its α value declines. Initial training in which two cues are reliably followed by different consequences will enhance the α value of each of them and subsequent discrimination tasks involving these cues will be facilitated – the acquired distinctiveness effect.

Empirical evidence of the acquired distinctiveness effect came largely from studies of discrimination learning, but Mackintosh's (1975) account implies that the effect should be found in simple conditioning too.

Type
Chapter
Information
Latent Inhibition
Cognition, Neuroscience and Applications to Schizophrenia
, pp. 114 - 136
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Aguado, L., Brugada, I., & Hall, G. (1997). Effects of a retention interval on the US-preexposure phenomenon in flavor aversion learning. Learning and Motivation, 28, 311–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 80–99.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bouton, M. E., Jones, D. L., McPhillips, S. A., & Swartzentruber, D. (1986). Potentiation and overshadowing in odor-aversion learning: role of method of odor presentation, the distal-proximal cue distinction, and the conditionability of the odor. Learning and Motivation, 17, 115–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Channell, S., & Hall, G. (1983). Contextual effects in latent inhibition with an appetitive conditioning procedure. Animal Learning & Behavior, 11, 67–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Friedman, B. X., Blaisdell, A. P., Escobar, M., & Miller, R. R. (1998). Comparator mechanisms and conditioned inhibition: conditioned stimulus preexposure disrupts Pavlovian conditioned inhibition but no explicitly unpaired inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 453–466.Google ScholarPubMed
Halgren, C. R. (1974). Latent inhibition in rats: associative or nonassociative?Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 86, 74–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. (1991). Perceptual and Associative Learning. Oxford: Clarendon Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G. (2003). Learned changes in the sensitivity of stimulus representations: associative and nonassociative mechanisms. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56B, 43–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G., Blair, C. A. J., & Artigas, A. A. (2006). Associative activation of stimulus representations restores lost salience: implications for perceptual learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 145–155.Google ScholarPubMed
Hall, G., Graham, S., Mitchell, C., & Lavis, Y. (2003). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness in human discrimination learning: evidence for associative mediation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 266–276.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hall, G., & Honey, R. C. (1989). Contextual effects in conditioning, latent inhibition, and habituation: associative and retrieval functions of contextual cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 232–241.Google Scholar
Hall, G., & Honey, R. C. (1990). Context-specific conditioning in the conditioned emotional response procedure. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 271–278.Google ScholarPubMed
Hall, G., Kaye, H., & Pearce, J. M. (1985). Attention and conditioned inhibition. In Miller, R. R. & Spear, N. E. (Eds.), Information Processing in Animals: Conditioned Inhibition. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 185–208.Google Scholar
Hall, G., & Mondragon, E. (1998). Contextual control as occasion setting. In Schmajuk, N. & Holland, P. (Eds.), Occasion Setting: Associative Learning and Cognition in Animals. Washington DC: American Psychological Association, pp. 199–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G., & Pearce, J. M. (1979). Latent inhibition of a CS during CS–US pairings. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 31–42.Google Scholar
Hall, G., & Pearce, J. M. (1982a). Restoring the associability of a pre-exposed CS by a surprising event. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 34B, 127–140.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hall, G., & Pearce, J. M. (1982b). Changes in stimulus associability during conditioning: implications for theories of acquisition. In Commons, M. L., Herrnstein, R. J., & Wagner, A. R. (Eds.), Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Acquisition, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 221–239.Google Scholar
Hall, G., Prados, J., & Sansa, J. (2005). Modulation of the effective salience of a stimulus by direct and associative activation of its representation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 267–276.Google ScholarPubMed
Honey, R. C., & Hall, G. (1988). Overshadowing and blocking procedures in latent inhibition. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 40B, 163–186.Google Scholar
Honey, R. C., & Hall, G. (1989a). Acquired equivalence and distinctiveness of cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 15, 338–346.Google ScholarPubMed
Honey, R. C., & Hall, G. (1989b). Attenuation of latent inhibition after compound preexposure: associative and perceptual explanations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 41B, 355–368.Google Scholar
James, W. (1890). Principles of Psychology. New York: Holt.Google Scholar
Kaye, H., & Pearce, J. M. (1984). The strength of the orienting response during Pavlovian conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 90–109.Google Scholar
Killcross, S., & Balleine, B. (1996). Role of primary motivation in stimulus preexposure effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 43–50.Google ScholarPubMed
Konorski, J. (1967). Integrative Activity of the Brain. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
Kremer, E. F. (1972). Properties of a preexposed stimulus. Psychonomic Science, 27, 45–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lawrence, D. H. (1949). Acquired distinctiveness of cues: I. Transfer between discriminations on the basis of familiarity with the stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 39, 770–784.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovibond, P. F., Preston, G. C., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1984). Context specificity of conditioning, extinction, and latent inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 360–375.Google Scholar
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, R. R., & Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: a response rule for the expression of associations. The Psychology of Learning and Motivation, 22, 51–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mondragón, E., Bonardi, C., & Hall, G. (2003). Negative priming and occasion setting in an appetitive Pavlovian procedure. Learning & Behavior, 31, 281–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, J. B. (2002). Context specificity of excitation and inhibition in ambiguous stimuli. Learning and Motivation, 33, 284–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1979). Loss of associability by a compound stimulus comprising excitatory and inhibitory elements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 19–30.Google ScholarPubMed
Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pearce, J. M., Kaye, H., & Hall, G. (1982). Predictive accuracy and stimulus associability: development of a model for Pavlovian learning. In Commons, M. L., Herrnstein, R. J., & Wagner, A. R. (Eds.), Quantitative Analyses of Behavior: Acquisition, vol. 3. Cambridge, MA: Ballinger, pp. 241–255.Google Scholar
Reiss, S., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). CS habituation produces a “latent inhibition effect” but no active “conditioned inhibition”. Learning and Motivation, 3, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1969). Pavlovian conditioned inhibtion. Psychological Bulletin, 72, 77–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rescorla, R. A. (1971). Summation and retardation tests of latent inhibition. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 75: 77–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R. A. (2006). Deepened extinction from compound stimulus presentation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 135–144.Google ScholarPubMed
Rescorla, R.A., & Wagner, A.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In Black, A. H. & Prokasy, W. F. (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, pp. 64–99.Google Scholar
Revusky, S. (1971). The role of interference in association over a delay. In Honig, W. K. & James, P. H. R. (Eds.), Animal Memory. New York: Academic Press, pp. 155–213.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodriguez, G., & Hall, G. (2008). Potentiation of latent inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 34, 352–360.Google ScholarPubMed
Rosas, J. M., & Bouton, M. E. (1997). Additivity of the effects of retention interval and context change on latent inhibition: toward a resolution of the context forgetting paradox. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 23, 283–294.Google Scholar
Swan, J. A., & Pearce, J. M. (1988). The orienting response as an index of stimulus associability in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 4, 292–301.Google Scholar
Sutherland, N. S., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1971). Mechanisms of Animal Discrimination Learning. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Wagner, A. R. (1976). Priming in STM: an information-processing mechanism for self-generated or retrieval-generated depression in performance. In Tighe, T. J. & Leaton, R. N. (Eds.), Habituation: Perspectives from Child Development, Animal Behavior, and Neurophysiology. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, pp. 95–128.Google Scholar
Westbrook, R. F., Jones, M. L., Bailey, G. K., & Harris, J. A. (2000). Contextual control over conditioned responding in a latent inhibition paradigm. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 26, 157–173.Google Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×