In 1973 Mackintosh reported an interference effect that he called learned irrelevance in which exposure to uncorrelated (CS/US) presentation of the unconditional stimulus (US) and the conditioned stimulus (CS) interfered with future Pavlovian conditioning. It has been argued that there is no specific interference effect in learned irrelevance; rather the interference is the sum of independent CS and US exposure effects (CS + US). We review previous research on this question and report two new experiments. We conclude that learned irrelevance is a consequence of a contingency learning and a specific learned irrelevance mechanism. Moreover even the “independent exposure controls”, used in previous experiments to support the CS and US exposure account, provide support for the correlation learning process.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerA. G. (1974). Rats learn that events, be they stimuli or responses, bear no relation to one another. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Canada.
2.
BakerA. G. (1976). Learned irrelevance and learned helplessness: Rats learn that stimuli, reinforces, and responses are uncorrelated.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes2, 130–141.
3.
BakerA. G. (1977). Conditioned inhibition arising from a between-sessions negative correlation.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes3, 144–155.
4.
BakerA. G.MackintoshN. J. (1977). Excitatory and inhibitory conditioning following uncorrelated presentations of CS and UCS.Animal Learning and Behavior5, 315–319.
5.
BakerA. G.MackintoshN. J. (1979). Preexposure to the CS alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance?.Learning and Motivation10, 278–294.
6.
BakerA. G.MercierP. (1982). Prior experience with the conditioning events: Evidence for a rich cognitive representation.Quantitative analyses of behavior: Acquisition process.CommonM.HernteinR.WagnerA. R.Hillsdale, NJ: Ballinger Press Vol. III, 117–144.
7.
BakerA. G.MercierP. (1989). Attention, retrospective processing and cognitive representation.Contemporary learning theory.KleinS. B.MowerR. R.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc85–116.
8.
BakerA. G.MercierP.GabelJ.BakerP. A. (1981). Exposure to the US causes interference with future conditioning: An associative deficit or an analogue to learned helplessness?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes7, 109–128.
9.
BakerA. G.MurphyR. A.Vallee-TourangeauF.MehtaR. (2001). Contingency learning and causal reasoning.Handbook of contemporary learning theories.MowrerR.KleinS.Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc255–306.
10.
BalazM. A.GutsinP.CacheiroH.MillerR. R. (1982). Blocking as a retrieval failure: Reactivation of associations to a blocked stimulus.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology34B, 99–113.
11.
BennettC. H.MaldonadoA.MackintoshN. J. (1995). Learned irrelevance is not the sum of exposures to CS and US.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology48B, 117–128.
12.
BennettC. H.WillsS. J.OakeshottS. M.MackintoshN. J. (2000). Is context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance?.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology53B, 239–253.
13.
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.
14.
BonardiC.OngS. Y. (2003). Learned irrelevance: A contemporary overview.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology56B, 180–89.
15.
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.
16.
ChengP. W.HolyoakK. J. (1995). Complex adaptive systems as intuitive statisticians: Causality, contingency, and prediction.Comparative approaches to cognitive science.RoitblatH. L.MeyerJ.-A.Cambridge, MA: MIT Press271–302.
17.
DickinsonA.BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 60–80.
18.
DwyerD. M.MackintoshN. J.BoakesR. A. (1998). Simultaneous activation of the representations of absent cues results in the formation of an excitatory association between them.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes24, 163–171.
19.
GallistelC. R. (1990). The organization of learningCambridge, MA: MIT Press.
20.
HallG. (1991). Perceptual and associative learningOxford: Clarendon Press.
21.
HoneyR. C.HallG. (1989). Attenuation of latent inhibition after compound preexposure: Associative and perceptual explanations.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology41B, 355–368.
22.
KaufmanM. A.BollesR. C. (1981). A nonassodative aspect of overshadowing.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society18, 318–320.
23.
KillcrossS.DickinsonA. (1996). Contextual control of latent inhibition by the reinforcer.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 45–59.
24.
LovibondP. F.PrestonG. C.MackintoshN. J. (1984). Context specificity of conditioning and latent inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes10, 360–375.
25.
LubowR. E. (1973). Latent inhibition.Psychological Bulletin79, 398–407.
26.
LubowR. E.MooreA. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditional stimulus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology52, 415–419.
27.
MackintoshN. J. (1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement.Constraints of learning.HindeR. A.HindeL. S.London: Academic Press75–96.
28.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variation in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
29.
MaierS. F.SeligmanM. E. P. (1976). Learned helplessness: Theory and evidence.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General105, 3–46.
30.
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 Processes14, 311–319.
31.
RescorlaR. A. (1969). Pavlovian conditioned inhibition.Psychological Bulletin72, 77–94.
32.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of rein-forcement and nonreinforcement.Classical conditioning II: Current theory and research.BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
33.
Van HammeL. J.WassermanE. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonrepresentation of compound stimulus elements.Learning and Motivation25, 127–151.
