A number of recent conditioned taste aversion (CTA) experiments have demonstrated a super-latent inhibition (LI) effect—namely, a time-induced increase in the effects of stimulus preexposure when the interval between acquisition and test is spent in a context that is different from the other experimental contexts. Two CTA experiments with rats were conducted to examine the role of primacy in producing super-LI. In Experiment 1, one of two flavours was pre-exposed, following which a second flavour was preexposed. After the second preexposure, animals were conditioned by pairing a compound of the two preexposed flavours with LiCl. The test stage was conducted 1 or 21 days after conditioning, with the interval being spent in either the same or different contexts. In the test, animals were confronted with two bottles, each with one of the two preexposed flavours. Super-LI was obtained only for the first preexposed flavour in the 21-day delay group that spent the interval in a different context. Experiment 2 was designed to ensure that the effects in Experiment 1 represented LI, and to control for order of presentation of the flavours and time between preexposure and acquisition. The results replicated those of Experiment 1. The two experiments support the importance of primacy in the general super-LI experiment where CS-alone preexposure precedes CS–US.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguadoLSymondsMHallG (1994). Interval between preexposure and test determines the magnitude of latent inhibition: Implications for an interference account.Animal Learning & Behavior22, 188–194.
2.
AguadoLde BrugadaIHallG (2001). Tests for inhibition after extinction of a conditioned stimulus in the flavour aversion procedure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54B, 201–217.
3.
AlvarezRLopezM (1995). Effects of elements or compound preexposure on conditioned taste aversion as a function of retention interval.Animal Learning & Behavior23, 391–399.
4.
BakerAGHaskinsCEHallG (1990). Stimulus generalization decrement in latent inhibition to a compound following exposure to the elements of the compound.Animal Learning & Behavior18, 162–170.
5.
BaknerLStrohenKNordeenMRiccioDC (1991). Postconditioning recovery from the latent inhibition effect in conditioned taste aversion.Physiology & Behavior50, 1269–1272.
6.
BestMRGemberlingGA (1977). Role of short-term processes in the conditioned stimulus preexposure effect and the delay of reinforcement gradient in long-delay taste aversion learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes3, 253–263.
7.
BoutonME (1991). Context and retrieval in extinction and in other examples of interference in simple associative learning. In L. W. Dachowski & C. F. Flaherty (Eds.), Current topics in animal learning: Brain, emotion, and cognitionpp. 25–53Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
8.
BoutonME (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin114, 80–99.
9.
BoutonMEKingDA (1986). Effect of context on performance to conditioned stimuli with mixed histories of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes12, 4–15.
10.
BoutonMEPeckCA (1992). Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning).Animal Learning & Behavior20, 313–321.
11.
ChannellSHallG (1983). Contextual effects in latent inhibition with an appetitive conditioning procedure.Animal Learning & Behavior11, 67–74.
12.
De la CasaLGDíazELubowRE (2003). Effects of post-treatment retention interval and context on neophobia and conditioned taste aversion.Behavioural Processes63, 159–170.
13.
De la CasaLGLubowRE (2000). Super-latent inhibition with conditioned taste aversion testing.Animal Learning & Behavior28, 389–399.
14.
De la CasaLGLubowRE (2002). An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect.Animal Learning & Behavior30, 112–120.
15.
DennistonJCSavastanoHIMillerRR (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theoriespp. 65–117Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
16.
EscobarMArcedianoFMillerRR (2001). Conditions favoring retroactive interference between antecedent events (cue competition) and between subsequent events (outcome competition).Psychonomic Bulletin & Review8, 691–697.
17.
GrahameNJBarnetRCGuntherLMMillerRR (1994). Latent inhibition as a performance deficit resulting from CS-context associations.Animal Learning and Behavior22, 395–408.
18.
HollandPCForbesDT (1980). Effects of compound or element preexposure on compound flavour aversion conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior8, 199–203.
19.
HoneyRCHallG (1988). Overshadowing and blocking procedures in latent inhibition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology40B, 163–186.
20.
IshiiKYamadaYHishimuraYHagaY (2002). The effects of preexposure-test and conditioning-test intervals on the magnitude of latent inhibition.Japanese Psychological Research44, 51–56.
21.
KnoedlerAJHellwigKANeathI (1999). The shift from recency to primacy with increasing delay.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition25, 474–487.
22.
KonorskiJSzwejkowskaG (1952). Chronic extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes: IV. The dependence of the course of extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes on the “history” of the conditioned stimulus (the principle of the primacy of the training).Acta Biologiae Experimentalis16, 95–113.
23.
LubowRE (1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theoryNew York:Cambridge University Press.
24.
LubowREDe la CasaLG (2002). Super-latent inhibition and spontaneous recovery: Differential effects of pre- and postconditioning CS-alone presentations after long delays in different contexts.Animal Learning & Behavior30, 376–386.
25.
LubowREGewirtzJC (1995). Latent inhibition in humans: Data, theory, and implications for schizophrenia.Psychological Bulletin117, 87–103.
26.
LubowRERifkinBAlekM (1976). The context effect: The relationship between stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determines subsequent learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes2, 38–47.
27.
MackintoshNJ (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
28.
McLaurinWAFarleyJAScarboroughBB (1963). Inhibitory effects of pre-irradiation saccharin habituation on conditioned avoidance behavior.Radiation Research18, 473–478.
29.
MillerRREscobarM (2002). Associative interference between cues and between outcomes presented together and presented apart: An integration.Behavioural Processes57, 163–185.
30.
MillerRRKasprowWJSchachtmanTR (1986). Retrieval variability: Sources and consequences.American Journal of Psychology99, 145–218.
31.
MillerRRMatzelLD (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), The psychology of learning and motivation22, pp. 51–92San Diego, CA:Academic Press.
32.
PearceJM (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review94, 61–73.
33.
PearceJM (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review101, 587–607.
34.
PearceJM (2002). Evaluation and development of a connectionist theory of configural learning.Animal Learning & Behavior30, 73–95.
35.
PearceJMHallG (1980). A model for Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 332–352.
36.
ReedP (1991). Blocking latent inhibition.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society29, 292–294.
37.
ReedPCroftHYeomansM (1996). Rats’ memory for serially presented novel flavours: Evidence for non-spatial primacy effects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 174–187.
38.
RobbinsRJ (1979). The effect of flavour preexposure upon the acquisition and retention of poison-based taste aversions in deer mice: Latent inhibition or partial reinforcement?.Behavioral and Neural Biology25, 387–397.
39.
RudyJWKrauterEEGaffuriA (1976). Attenuation of the latent inhibition effect by prior exposure to another stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes2, 235–247.
40.
ScavioMJRossRTMcLeodLM (1983). Preservation of associative strength in rabbit nictitating membrane response conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior11, 91–94.
41.
SpearNE (1978). The processing of memories: Forgetting and retentionHillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
42.
WagnerAR (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanismspp. 5–47Hillsdale, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
43.
WickensCTuberDSWickensDD (1983). Memory for the conditioned response: The proactive effect of preexposure to potential conditioning stimuli and context change.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General112, 41–57.
