Three studies used a computer video game preparation to demonstrate latent inhibition in adult humans. In all studies participants fired torpedoes at a target spaceship by clicking the mouse. Conditioned stimuli (CSs) were presented in the form of coloured “sensors” at the bottom of the screen. Conditioning was conducted by pairing a sensor with an attack from the target spaceship. Participants learned to suppress their rate of mouse clicking in preparation for an attack. In Experiment 1 a total of 10 preexposures to the sensor CS, prior to conditioning, retarded acquisition of suppression. In Experiment 2 the effect of preexposure was shown to be context specific. Experiment 3 showed little generalization of the preexposure effect from one sensor CS to another. Experiment 3 also showed that preexposure did not make the sensor CS inhibitory. Comparisons with conditioned suppression procedures with animals and negative-priming procedures are briefly discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AguadoL.SymondsM.HallG. (1994). Interval between preexposure and test determines the magnitude of latent inhibition: Implications for an interference account.Animal Learning & Behavior22, 188–194.
2.
ArcedianoF.OrtegaN.MatuteH. (1996). A behavioural preparation for the study of human Pavlovian conditioning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 270–283.
3.
BoutonM. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin114, 80–99.
4.
BoutonM. E.RosasJ. M. (1997). Additivity of the effects of retention interval and context change on latent inhibition: Toward resolution of the context forgetting paradox.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes23, 283–294.
5.
Braunstein-BercovitzH.HenI.LubowR. E. (2004). Masking task load modulates latent inhibition: Support for a distraction model of irrelevant information processing by high schizotypal participants.Cognition & Emotion18, 1135–1144.
6.
Braunstein-BercovitzH.LubowR. E. (1998). Are high-schizotypal normal participants distractible or limited in attentional resources? A study of latent inhibition as function of masking task load and schizotypy level.Journal of Abnormal Psychology107, 659–670.
7.
De la CasaL. G.LubowR. E. (2001). Latent inhibition with a response time measure from a within-subject design: Effects of number of preexposures, masking task, context change, and delay.Neuropsychology15, 244–253.
8.
De La CasaL. G.LubowR. E. (2002). An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect.Animal Learning and Behavior30, 112–120.
9.
DeschepperB.TreismanA. (1996). Visual memory for novel shapes: Implicit coding without attention.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition22, 27–47.
10.
EscobarM.ArcedianoF.MillerR. R. (2003). Latent inhibition in human adults without masking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition29, 1028–1040.
11.
GrahamS.McLarenI. P. L. (1998). Retardation in human discrimination learning as a consequence of pre-exposure: Latent inhibition or negative priming?.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology51B, 155–172.
12.
GrayN. S.WilliamsJ.FernandezM.RuddleR.GoodM.SnowdenR. J. (2001). Context dependent latent inhibition in adult humans.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology54B, 233–245.
13.
HallG.ChannelS. (1985). Differential effects of contextual change on latent inhibition and on the habituation of an orienting response.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes11, 470–481.
14.
HowellD. C. (1987). Statistical methods for psychology. (2nd ed.). Boston: PWS-Kent.
15.
JosephM. H. (1995). Latent inhibition: Interpretation of amphetamine effects in novel paradigms.Psychopharmacology118, 101–103.
16.
KillcrossA. S.DickinsonA. (1996). Contextual control of latent inhibition by the reinforcer.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology49B, 45–59.
17.
KillcrossA. S.DickinsonA.RobbinsT. W. (1995). The on-baseline latent inhibition effect is not counterconditioning.Psychopharmacology118, 104–106.
18.
KraemerP. J.RobertsW. A. (1984). The influence of flavor preexposure and test interval on conditioned taste aversions in the rat.Learning and Motivation15, 259–278.
19.
LeboeJ. P.LeboeL. C.MillikenB. (2003). Another look at the effect of a surprising intervening event on negative priming.Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology57, 115–124.
20.
LubowR. E. (1973). Latent inhibition.Psychological Bulletin79, 398–407.
21.
LubowR. E. (1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theoryNew York: Cambridge University Press.
22.
LubowR. E.GewirtzJ. C. (1995). Latent inhibition in humans: Data, theory, and implications for schizophrenia.Psychological Bulletin117, 87–103.
23.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
24.
McLarenI. P. L.MackintoshN. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning.Animal Learning and Behavior28, 211–246.
25.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 532–552.
26.
ReissS.WagnerA. R. (1972). CS habituation produces a “latent inhibition effect” but no active “conditioned inhibition.”.Learning & Motivation3, 237–245.
27.
RescorlaR. A. (1971). Summation and retardation tests of latent inhibition.Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology75, 77–81.
28.
RescorlaR. A.WagnerA. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement.Classical conditioning: II. Current theory and research.BlackA. H.ProkasyW. F.New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
29.
RodríguezG.AlonsoG. (2004). Latent inhibition as a function of US intensity in a two-stage CER procedure.Psicologica25, 207–216.
30.
RosasJ. M.BoutonM. E. (1997). Additivity of the effects of retention interval and context change on latent inhibition: Toward resolution of the context forgetting paradox.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes23, 283–294.
31.
SwartzentruberD.BoutonM. E. (1992). Context sensitivity of conditioned suppression following preexposure to the conditioned stimulus.Animal Learning & Behavior20, 97–103.
32.
TipperS. P. (1985). The negative priming effect: Inhibitory priming by ignored objects.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology37A, 571–590.
33.
TipperS. P.WeaverB.CameronS.BrehautJ. C.BaestedoJ. (1991). Inhibitory mechanisms of attention in identification and localization tasks: Time course and disruption.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, & Cognition17, 681–692.
34.
WagnerA. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior.Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms.SpearN. E.MillerR. R.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc5–47.
35.
WestbrookR. F.JonesM. L.BaileyG. K.HarrisJ. (2000). Contextual control over conditioned responding in a latent inhibition paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes26, 157–173.
