Three lever-press suppression studies were conducted with water-deprived rats to investigate the role of similarity in proactive interference within first-order Pavlovian conditioning. Experiments 1a and 1b assessed the influence of stimulus complexity in proactive interference. Both experiments found greater interference when the interfering cue and target cue were composed of the same number of elements. Experiment 2 assessed the influence of context similarity in proactive interference and demonstrated that stronger proactive interference occurred when the interfering cue and the target cue were trained in the same context. The results in conjunction with other reports indicate that various types of cue interaction (e.g., interference and competition) are influenced by similarity of the interacting training events.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AmundsonJ. C.EscobarM.MillerR. R. (2003). Proactive interference between cues trained with a common outcome in first-order Pavlovian conditioning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes29, 311–322.
2.
AmundsonJ. C.MillerR. R. (2007). CS–US temporal relations in blocking. Manuscript submitted for publication.
3.
BarnetR. C.GrahameN. J.MillerR. R. (1993). Temporal encoding as a determinant of blocking.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes19, 327–341.
4.
BlaisdellA. P.DennistonJ. C.MillerR. R. (1998). Temporal encoding as a determinant of overshadowing.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes24, 72–83.
5.
BlaisdellA. P.DennistonJ. C.MillerR. R. (1999). Posttraining shifts in the overshadowing stimulus–unconditioned stimulus interval alleviates the overshadowing deficit.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes25, 18–27.
6.
BonardiC.HoneyR. C.HallG. (1990). Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests.Animal Learning & Behavior18, 229–237.
7.
BoutonM. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin114, 80–99.
8.
BrittS. H. (1935). Retroactive inhibition: A review of the literature.Psychological Bulletin32, 381–440.
9.
EscobarM.MatuteH.MillerR. R. (2001). Cues trained apart compete for behavioral control in rats: Convergence with the associative interference literature.Journal of Experimental Psychology: General130, 97–115.
10.
EscobarM.MillerR. R. (2003). Timing in retroactive interference.Learning & Behavior31, 257–272.
11.
GallistelC. R.GibbonJ. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning.Psychological Review107, 289–344.
12.
JohnstonW. A. (1968). Bidirectional interference in an A–B, C–B paradigm.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior7, 305–311.
13.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
14.
MacLeodC. M. (1975). Release from proactive interference: Insufficiency of an attentional account.American Journal of Psychology88, 458–465.
15.
MatuteH.PineñoO. (1998). Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning.Animal Learning & Behavior26, 3–14.
16.
McLarenI. P. L.MackintoshN. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning.Animal Learning & Behavior28, 211–246.
17.
MillerR. R.EscobarM. (2002). Associative interference between cues and between outcomes presented together and presented apart: An integration.Behavioural Processes57, 163–185.
18.
MillerR. R.MatzelL. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations.The psychology of learning and motivation. BowerG. H.San Diego, CA: Academic Press22, 51–92.
19.
PearceJ. M. (1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review94, 61–73.
20.
PearceJ. M.BoutonM. E. (2001). Theories of associative learning in animals.Annual Review of Psychology52, 111–139.
21.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 532–552.
22.
PostmanL.UnderwoodB. J. (1973). Critical issues in interference theory.Memory and Cognition1, 19–40.
23.
RandichA.LoLordoV. M. (1979). Preconditioning exposure to the unconditioned stimulus affects the acquisition of a conditioned emotional response.Learning and Motivation10, 245–277.
24.
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: Appleton-Century-Crofts64–99.
25.
RobinsonE. S. (1927). The similarity factor in retroaction.American Journal of Psychology39, 297–312.
26.
SchreursB. G.WestbrookR. F. (1982). The effect of changes in the CS–US interval during compound conditioning upon an otherwise blocked element.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology34B, 19–30.
27.
SkaggsE. B. (1925). Further studies in retroactive inhibition.Psychological monographs. FrantzS. I.WarrenH. C.WatsonJ. B.BentlyM.FernebergerS. W.Princeton, NJ: Psychological Review Company34.
28.
SlameckaN. J.CerasoJ. (1960). Retroactive and proactive inhibition of verbal learning.Psychological Bulletin57, 449–475.
29.
SwensonE. J. (1941). Retroactive inhibition: A review of the literature.University of Minnesota studies in educationMinneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Press1, 7–41.
30.
WickensD. D.BornD. G.AllenC. K. (1963). Proactive inhibition and item similarity on short-term memory.Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior2, 440–445.
