Is the context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance?

Abstract

In three experiments, rats were pre-exposed either to uncorrelated presentations of a light and sucrose pellets (group CS/US) or to equivalent presentations of the light and pellets in separate sessions (control). In Experiment 1, subsequent conditioning to the light proceeded more slowly in group CS/US than in the control group, whether this conditioning was excitatory, with the light signalling the delivery of pellets, or inhibitory, with the light signalling their absence. Bonardi and Hall (1996) have argued that this learned irrelevance effect may be reducible to latent inhibition, which would be stronger in group CS/US because they are both pre-exposed and conditioned to the CS in the presence of traces of previous USs occurring in the same session. This analysis implies that group CS/US should have conditioned more rapidly to the CS than controls on the first trial of each session in Experiment 1, but this did not happen. It also implies that the learned irrelevance effect should be reversed if conditioning trials are given at a rate of one per day. Experiments 2 and 3 found no support for this prediction. We conclude that learned irrelevance effects cannot always be reduced to latent inhibition.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Baker

A. G.

(1976). Learned irrelevance and learned helplessness: Rats learn that stimuli, reinforcers, and responses are uncorrelated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 2, 130–141.

Baker

A. G.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1977). Excitatory and inhibitory conditioning following uncorrelated presentations of CS and US. Animal Learning & Behavior 5, 315–319.

Baker

A. G.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1979). Preexposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance?. Learning & Motivation 10, 278–294.

Bennett

C. H.

Maldonado

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1995). Learned irrelevance is not the sum of exposure to CS and US. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 48B, 117–128.

Bonardi

Hall

(1996). Learned irrelevance: No more than the sum of CS and US preexposure effects?. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 22, 183–191.

Capaldi

E. J.

(1967). A sequential hypothesis of instrumental learning. The psychology of learning and motivation. Spence

K. W.

Spence

J. T.

New York: Academic Press Vol. 1, 67–156.

Hall

(1991). Perceptual and associative learning Oxford: Clarendon Press.

Howell

D. C.

(1992). Statistical methods for psychology Behnont, CA: Duxberry Press.

Kehoe

E. J.

(1988). A layered network model of associative learning: Learning to learn and configuration. Psychological Review 95, 411–433.

10.

Killcross

A. S.

Balleine

(1996). Role of primary motivation in stimulus preexposure effects. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 22, 32–42.

11.

Lubow

R. E.

(1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

12.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. Constraints on learning. Hinde

R. A.

Hinde

J. S.

London: Academic Press 75–96.

13.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review 82, 276–298.

14.

Pearce

J. M.

(1987). A model for stimulus generalization in Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Review 94, 61–73.

15.

Randich

LoLordo

V. M.

(1979). Associative and non-associative theories of the UCS preexposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Bulletin 5, 25–28.

16.

Rescorla

R. A.

Holland

P. C.

(1982). Behavioral studies of associative learning in animals. Annual Review of Psychology 33, 265–308.