In two experiments with rats, three stimuli, A, B, and X, were used for an AX + BX + Xo discrimination in which food was presented after the simultaneous presentation of A and X, or B and X, but never after X by itself. For one group in each experiment, X was repeatedly presented by itself before the start of discrimination training. This manipulation weakened responding on test trials in which the three stimuli were presented together. The results are interpreted in terms of a configural theory of conditioning that assumes that preexposure to a stimulus will reduce its capacity to promote generalization among different configurations to which it belongs.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BakerA. G.MercierP. (1982). Extinction of the context and latent inhibition.Learning a nd Motivation13, 391–416.
2.
BennettC. H.WillsS. J.WellsJ. O.Mackinto shN. J. (1994). Reduced generalization following preexposure: Latent inhibition of common elements or a difference in familiarity?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes20, 232–239.
3.
BoutonM. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the inte rference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin114, 80–99.
4.
CarrA. F. (1974). Latent inhibition and overshadowing in conditioned emotional response conditioning in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology86, 718–723.
5.
HallG. (1991). Perceptual and associative learningOxford: Clarendon Press.
6.
LubowR. E.MooreA. U. (1959). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditional stimulus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology52, 415–419.
7.
MackintoshN. J. (1975). A theory of a ttention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review82, 276–298.
8.
MillerR. R.KasprowW. J.SchachtmanT. R. (1986). Retrieval variability: Sources and consequences.American Journal of Psychology99, 145–218.
9.
PearceJ. M. (1987). A model of stimulus generalization for Pavlovian conditioning.Psychological Review94, 61–73.
10.
PearceJ. M. (1994). Similarity and discrimination: A selective review and a connectionist model.Psychological Review101, 587–607.
11.
PearceJ. M.AdamJ.WilsonP. N.DarbyR. J. (1992). Effects of discrimination training on responding during a compound conditioned stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes18, 379–386.
12.
PearceJ. M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian lear ning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review87, 532–552.
13.
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.
14.
RevuskyS. (1971). The role of interference in association over delay.Animal memory.HonigW. K.JamesP. H. R.New York: Academic Press155–213.
