Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatments: Symmetry with respect to primacy
详细信息 查看全文
- 作者：Daniel S. Wheeler (1)
Steven C. Stout (1)
Ralph R. Miller (1) - 刊名：Learning & Behavior
- 出版年：2004
- 出版时间：August 2004
- 年：2004
- 卷：32
- 期：3
- 页码：335-347
- 全文大小：172KB
- 参考文献：1. Aguado, L., Symonds, M. , &Hall, G. (1994). Interval between preexposure and test determines the magnitude of latent inhibition: Implications for an interference account. / Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 188鈥?94.
2. Bakner, L., Strohen, K., Nordeen, M. , &Riccio, D. C. (1991). Postconditioning recovery from the latent inhibition effect in conditioned taste aversion. / Physiology & Behavior,50, 1269鈥?272. CrossRef
3. Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning. / Psychological Bulletin,114, 80鈥?9. CrossRef
4. Bouton, M. E. , &Nelson, J. B. (1994). Contextual specificity of target versus feature inhibition in feature negative discrimination. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 51鈥?5. CrossRef
5. Bouton, M. E. , &Peck, C. A. (1992). Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning). / Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 313鈥?21.
6. Brooks, D. C. (2000). Recent and remote extinction cues reduce spontaneous recovery. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology,53B, 25鈥?8.
7. Brooks, D. C., Palmatier, M. I., Garcia, E. O. , &Johnson, J. L. (1999). An extinction cue reduces spontaneous recovery of a conditioned taste aversion. / Animal Learning & Behavior,27, 77鈥?8.
8. De la Casa, L. G. , &Lubow, R. E. (2000). Superlatent inhibition with delayed conditioned taste aversion testing. / Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 389鈥?99.
9. De la Casa, L. G. , &Lubow, R. E. (2002). An empirical analysis of the superlatent inhibition effect. / Animal Learning & Behavior,30, 112鈥?20.
10. Dickinson, A. , &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology,49B, 60鈥?0.
11. Escobar, M., Arcediano, F. , &Miller, R. R. (2002). Latent inhibition and contextual associations. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,28, 123鈥?36. CrossRef
12. Garcia, J. (1989). Food for Tolman: Cognition and cathexis in concert. In T. Archer & L. Nilsson (Eds.), / Aversion, avoidance, and anxiety (pp. 45鈥?4). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13. Grahame, N. J., Barnet, R. C., Gunther, L. M. , &Miller, R. R. (1994). Latent inhibition as a performance deficit resulting from CS-context associations. / Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 395鈥?08.
14. Killcross, A. S., Kiernan, M. J., Dwyer, D. , &Westbrook, R. F. (1998). Effects of retention interval on latent inhibition and perceptual learning. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51B, 59鈥?4.
15. Konorski, J. , &Szwejkowska, G. (1952). Chronic extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes: IV. The dependence of the course of extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes on the 鈥渉istory鈥?of the conditioned stimulus. (The principle of the primacy of first training). / Acta Biologiae Experimentalis,16, 95鈥?13.
16. Kraemer, P. J. , &Ossenkopp, K.-P. (1986). The effects of flavor preexposure and taste interval on conditioned taste aversion in rats. / Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,24, 219鈥?22.
17. Kraemer, P. J., Randall, C. K. , &Carbary, T. J. (1991). Release from latent inhibition with delayed testing. / Animal Learning & Behavior,19, 139鈥?45.
18. Kraemer, P. J. , &Roberts, W. A. (1984). The influence of flavor preexposure and test interval on conditioned taste aversions in the rat. / Learning & Motivation,15, 259鈥?78. CrossRef
19. Lubow, R. E. (1989). / Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. New York: Cambridge University Press. CrossRef
20. Lubow, R. E. , &De la Casa, L. G. (2002). Superlatent inhibition and spontaneous recovery: Differential effects of pre- and postconditioning CS-alone presentations after long delays in different contexts. / Animal Learning & Behavior,30, 376鈥?86.
21. Lubow, R. E., Schnur, P. , &Rifkin, B. (1976). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 163鈥?74. CrossRef
22. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. / Psychological Review,82, 276鈥?98. CrossRef
23. McLaren, I. P. L., Bennett, C., Plaisted, K., Aitken, M. , &Mackintosh, N. J. (1994). Latent inhibition, context specificity, and context familiarity. / Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology,47B, 387鈥?00.
24. Miller, R. R., Kasprow, W. J. , &Schachtman, T. R. (1986). Retrieval variability: Sources and consequences. / American Journal of Psychology,99, 145鈥?18. CrossRef
25. Miller, R. R. , &Matzel, L. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.), / The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 51鈥?2). San Diego: Academic Press.
26. Nelson, J. B. (2002). Context specificity of excitation and inhibition in ambiguous stimuli. / Learning & Motivation,33, 284鈥?10. CrossRef
27. Pavlov, I. P. (1927). / Conditioned reflexes. New York: Dover.
28. Pearce, J. M. , &Hall, G. (1980). A model of Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. / Psychological Review,87, 532鈥?52. CrossRef
29. Robbins, S. J. (1990). Mechanisms underlying spontaneous recovery in autoshaping. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,16, 235鈥?49. CrossRef
30. Spear, N. E. (1978). / The processing of memories: Forgetting and retention. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
31. Stout , S. C.,Amundson , J. C., &Miller , R. R. (2004). / Trial order and retention interval in human contingency judgments. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32. Swartzentruber, D. , &Bouton, M. E. (1992). Context sensitivity of conditioned suppression following preexposure to the conditioned stimulus. / Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 97鈥?03.
33. Westbrook, R. F., Jones, M. L., Bailey, G. K. , &Harris, J. A. (2000). Contextual control over conditioned responding in a latent inhibition paradigm. / Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,26, 157鈥?73. CrossRef - 作者单位：Daniel S. Wheeler (1)
Steven C. Stout (1)
Ralph R. Miller (1)
1. Department of Psychology, SUNY-Binghamton, 13902-6000, Binghamton, NY - ISSN：1543-4508
文摘
Imposition of a retention interval between cue-outcome pairings and testing can alleviate the retardation of conditioned responding induced by pretraining exposure to the cue (i.e., the CS-preexposure effect). However, recent studies have reported an enhanced effect of CS-preexposure treatment with longer retention intervals (De la Casa & Lubow, 2000, 2002; Lubow & De la Casa, 2002). In a series of conditioned barpress suppression studies with rats, we examined the effects of imposing a retention interval just prior to testing following either CS-preexposure (cue alone before cue-outcome pairings) or extinction (cue alone after cue-outcome pairings) treatments. Experiment 1 replicated in a different preparation recent reports of CS-preexposure treatment effects increasing with longer retention intervals. Experiment 2 showed that spontaneous recovery of stimulus control of behavior after extinction can be obtained with the same parameters as those used to observe the augmented effect of CS-preexposure treatment. In Experiment 3, both the augmented effect of CS-preexposure treatment and spontaneous recovery from extinction were found when we used, in place of a retention interval, an associative priming manipulation.