This article reviews the recent literature on the topic of learned irrelevance. It asks whether the retardation of subsequent conditioning produced by uncorrelated preexposure is indeed the result of the animal learning that a conditioned stimulus (CS) and unconditioned stimulus (US) are unrelated, or whether it is better explained either as a result of the context specificity of latent inhibition, or as some other artefact of the uncorrelated schedule employed. The conclusion is that there is as yet no good evidence to support the existence of a “genuine” learned irrelevance effect.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerA. G. (1976). Learned irrelevance and learned helplessness: Rats learn that stimuli, reinforcers and responses are uncorrelated.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes2, 130–141.
2.
BakerA. G. (1977). Conditioned inhibition arising from a between-sessions negative correlation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes3, 144–155.
3.
BakerA. G.MackintoshN. J. (1977). Excitatory and inhibitory conditioning following uncorrelated presentations of CS and UCS.Animal Learning and Behavior5, 315–319.
4.
BakerA. G.MackintoshN. J. (1979). Preezposure to the CS alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance?.Learning and Motivation10, 278–294.
5.
BakerA. G.MurphyR. A.MehtaR. (2003). Learned irrelevance and retrospective correlation learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56B, 190–101.
6.
BennettC. H.MaldonadoA.MackintoshN. J. (1995). Learned irrelevance is not the sum of exposure to CS and US.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology48B, 117–128.
7.
BennettC. H.WillsS. J.OakeshottS. M.MackintoshN. J. (2000). Is the context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance?.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology53B, 239–254.
8.
BonardiC.HallG. (1996). Learned irrelevance: No more than the sum of CS and US preexposure effects?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes22, 183–191.
9.
BonardiC.HallG.OngS. Y. (2002). Uncorrelated preexposure to CS and US: Learned irrelevance or conditional inhibition?.Animal Learning and Behavior Manuscript submitted for publication.
10.
BoutonM. E.RosengardC.AchenbachG. G.PeckC. A.BrooksD. C. (1993). Effects of contextual conditioning and unconditional stimulus presentation on performance in appetitive conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology46B, 63–95.
11.
ChannellS.HallG. (1983). Contextual effects in latent inhibition with an appetitive conditioning procedure.Animal Learning and Behavior1, 67–74.
12.
KillcrossS.DickinsonA. (1996). Contextual control of latent inhibition by the reinforcer.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 45–59.
13.
KremerE. F. (1971). Truly random and traditional control procedures in CER conditioning in the rat.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology76, 441–448.
14.
LovibondP. F.PrestonG. C.MackintoshN. J. (1984). Context specificity of conditioning and latent inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes10, 360–375.
15.
LubowR. E.MooreA. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditional stimulus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology52, 415–419.
16.
MackintoshN. J. (1983). Conditioning and associative learningOxford: Clarendon Press.
17.
MatzelL. D.SchachtmanT. R.MillerR. R. (1988). Learned irrelevance exceeds the sum of CS-preexposure and US-preexposure deficits.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes13, 65–72.
18.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory.BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.New York.
