Three experiments with rats used conditioned suppression of barpress to test predictions of the extended comparator hypothesis, which assumes that the effectiveness of (first-order) comparator stimuli in modulating responding to a target conditioned stimulus (CS) is itself modulated by other (second-order) comparator stimuli. Experiment 1 demonstrated that both pretraining exposure to the target CS alone (i.e., CS-preexposure effect, also known as latent inhibition) and pretraining exposure to a compound of the target CS and nontarget CS (i.e., compound-CS-preexposure effect) counteract overshadowing, and that posttraining deflation (i.e., extinction) of the overshadowing stimulus attenuates responding to the target CS when overshadowing is preceded by a CS-preexposure treatment (i.e., yields a CS-preexposure effect), but not when overshadowing is preceded by a compound-CS-preexposure treatment. Experiment 2 examined the consequences of posttraining associative inflation of the overshadowing stimulus or the preexposure companion stimulus following conjoint compound-CS-preexposure and overshadowing treatment. Experiment 3 examined the consequences of posttraining inflation of the overshadowing stimulus or the context following conjoint CS-alone preexposure and overshadowing treatment. The results support the expression-focused comparator view in contrast to recent acquisition-focused models of retrospective revaluation.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArcedianoF.EscobarM., & MatuteH. (2001). Reversal from blocking in humans as a result of post training extinction of the blocking stimulus. Animal Learning & Behavior,29, 354–366.
2.
BlaisdellA. P.BristolA. S.GuntherL. M., & MillerR. R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other: Support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,24, 335–351.
3.
BlaisdellA. P.GuntherL. M., & MillerR. R. (1999). Recovery from blocking achieved by extinguishing the blocking CS. Animal Learning & Behavior,27, 63–76.
4.
BlaisdellA. P., & MillerR. R. (2001). Conditioned inhibition produced by extinction-mediated recovery from the relative stimulus validity effect: A test of acquisition and performance models of empirical retrospective revaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,27, 48–58.
5.
BrogdenW. J. (1939). Sensory pre-conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology,25, 323–332.
6.
ColeR. P.DennistonJ. C., & MillerR. R. (1996). Reminder-induced attenuation of the effect of relative stimulus validity. Animal Learning & Behavior,24, 256–265.
7.
ColeR. P.GuntherL. M., & MillerR. R. (1997). Spontaneous recovery from the effect of relative stimulus validity. Learning and Motivation,28, 1–19.
8.
De HouwerJ., & BeckersT. (2002a). Higher-order retrospective revaluation in human causal learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 137–151.
9.
De HouwerJ., & BeckersT. (2002b). Second-order backward blocking and unovershadowing in human causal learning. Experimental Psychology,49, 27–33.
10.
DennistonJ. C.MillerR. R., & MatuteH. (1996). Biological significance as a determinant of cue competition. Psychological Science,7, 325–331.
11.
DennistonJ. C.SavastanoH. I., & MillerR. R.(2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In MowrerR. R. & KleinS.B. (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning (pp. 65–117). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
12.
DickinsonA., & BurkeJ. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgments. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60–80.
13.
GrahameN. J.BarnetR. C., & MillerR. R. (1992). Pavlovian learning in multiple contexts: Competition between contexts for comparator status. Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 329–338.
14.
HollandP. C. (1999). Overshadowing and blocking as acquisition deficits: No recovery after extinction of overshadowing or blocking cues. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 307–334.
15.
KaminL. J. (1968). “Attention-like” processes in classical conditioning. In JonesM. R. (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9–31). Miami: University of Miami Press.
16.
KasprowW. J.CacheiroH.BalazM. A., & MillerR. R. (1982). Reminder-induced recovery of associations to an overshadowed stimulus. Learning and Motivation,13, 155–166.
17.
KaufmanM. A., & BollesR. C. (1981). A nonassociative aspect of overshadowing. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,18, 318–320.
18.
KraemerP. J.LariviereN. A., & SpearN. E. (1988). Expression of a taste aversion conditioned with odor-taste compound: Overshadowing is relatively weak in weanlings and decreases over a retention interval in adults. Animal Learning & Behavior,16, 164–168.
19.
LarkinM. J. W.AitkenM. R. F., & DickinsonA. (1998). Retrospective revaluation of causal judgments under positive and negative contingencies. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,24, 1331–1352.
20.
LashleyK. S. (1942). An examination of the “continuity theory” as applied to discriminative learning. Journal of General Psychology,26, 241–265.
21.
LoyI., & HallG. (2001). Inhibición latente y ensombrecimiento con un procedimiento de ingesta oral de Li/Latent inhibition and overshadowing with a lithium drinking procedure. Paper presented at the XIII annual meeting of the Sociedad Espanola de Psicología Comparada [Spanish Society of Comparative Psychology], San Sebastián, Spain.
22.
LubowR. E. (1973). Latent inhibition. Psychological Bulletin,79, 398–407.
23.
LubowR. E., & MooreA. V. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced exposure to the conditioned stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology,52, 415–419.
24.
LubowR. E.SchnurP., & RifkinB. (1976). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 163–174.
25.
LubowR. E.WagnerM., & WeinerI. (1982). The effects of compound stimulus preexposure of two elements differing in salience on the acquisition of conditioned suppression. Animal Learning & Behavior,10, 483–489.
26.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
27.
MatzelL. D.SchachtmanT. R., & MillerR. R. (1985). Recovery of an overshadowed association achieved by extinction of the overshadowing stimulus. Learning and Motivation,16, 398–412.
28.
MillerR. R., & MatuteH. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,125, 370–386.
29.
MillerR. R., & MatzelL. D.(1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In BowerG. H. (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation, Vol. 22 (pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic.
30.
MillerR. R., & SchachtmanT.R.(1985). Conditioning context as an associative baseline: Implications for response generation and the nature of conditioned inhibition. In MillerR. R.SpearN. J. (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 51–88). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31.
OberlingP.BristolA.MatuteH., & MillerR. R. (2000). Biological significance attenuates overshadowing, relative validity, and degraded contingency effects. Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 172–186.
PearceJ. M., & HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
34.
RauhutA. S.McPheeJ. E.DiPietroN. T., & AyresJ. J. B. (2000). Conditioned inhibition training of the competing cue after compound conditioning does not reduce cue competition. Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 92–108.
35.
RescorlaR. A., & WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA. H. & ProkasyW. F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64–69). New York: Appleton Century Crofts.
36.
RudyJ. W.KrauterE. E., & GaffuriA. (1976). Attenuation of the latent inhibition effect by prior exposure to another stimulus. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 235–247.
37.
Van HammeL. J., & WassermanE. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation,25, 127–151.
38.
WagnerA. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic processing in animal behavior. In SpearN. E. & MillerR. R. (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
39.
WagnerA. R.LoganF. A.HaberlandtK., & PriceT. (1968). Stimulus selection and a “modified continuity theory”. Journal of Experimental Psychology,76, 171–180.
40.
WassermanE. A., & BerglanL. R. (1998). Backward blocking and recovery from overshadowing in human causal judgment: The role of within-compound associations. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 51B, 121–138.
