Abstract
Conditioned attention theory (CAT) of latent inhibition (LI) states that parallel learning processes occur during reinforced and nonreinforced stimulus presentation. The present experiments investigated the effects of nonreinforced preexposure of either a compound CS or elements of that compound which differed in salience. Three predictions were advanced: (1) Both the compound and its elements will show an increase in LI as a function of the number of preexposures; (2) the two elements will show different levels of LI, with more LI accruing to the more salient element; (3) overshadowing will occur during compound preexposure. Two experiments, using rats as subjects and a conditioned suppression test, are reported. In Experiment 1, groups received 0, 20, 40, or 80 nonreinforced preexposures to a compound whose elements differed in salience. The results of the subsequent test confirmed predictions 1 and 2. Experiment 2, in which groups were preexposed to either the elements or the compound, provided evidence for an overshadowing effect, confirming prediction 3 from CAT.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Crowell, C. R., &Anderson, D. C. Variations in intensity, interstimulus interval and interval between preconditioning CS exposure and conditioning with rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1972,79, 291–298.
Domjan, M., &Siegel, S. Conditioned suppression following CS preexposure.Psychonomic Science, 1971,25, 11–12.
Kamin, L. S. Predictability, surprise, attention and conditioning. In B. A. Campbell & R. M. Church (Eds.),Punishment and aversive behavior, New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1969.
Lantz, A. W. Effect of number of trials, interstimulus interval, and dishabituation during CS habituation on subsequent conditioning in a CER paradigm.Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973,1, 223–227.
Lubow, R. E. Latent inhibition.Psychological Bulletin, 1973,79, 398–407.
Lubow, R. E., Alek, M., &Arzy, J. Behavioral decrement following stimulus preexposure: Effects of number of preexposures, presence of a second stimulus, and interstimulus interval in children and adults.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavioral Processes, 1975,1, 178–188.
Lubow, R. E., Markman, R. E., &Allen, J. Latent inhibition and classical conditioning of the rabbit pinna response.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1968,66, 688–694.
Lubow, R. E., &Moore, A. U. Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced preexposure to the conditional stimulus.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1959,52, 415–419.
Lubow, R. E., Rifkin, B., &Alek, M. The context effect: The relationship between stimulus preexposure and environmental preexposure determines subsequent learning.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 38–47.
Lubow, R. E., Schnur, P., &Rifkin, B. Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 163–174.
Lubow, R. E., &Siebert, L. Latent inhibition within the CER paradigm.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1969,68, 136–138.
Lubow, R. E., Weiner, I., &Schnur, P. Conditioned attention theory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 15). New York: Academic Press, 1981.
Mackintosh, N. J. Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.),Constraints on learning. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Mackintosh, N. J. A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review, 1975,82, 276–298.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review, 1980,87, 532–552.
Reiss, S., &Wagner, A. R. CS habituation produces a “latent inhibition” effect but no active “conditioned inhibition.”Learning and Motivation, 1972,3, 237–245.
Rescorla, R. A. Summation and retardation of latent inhibition.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,75, 77–81.
Rescorla, R. A., &Wagner, A. R. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972.
Rudy, J. W., Krauter, E. E., &Gaffuri, A. Attenuation of the latent inhibition effect by prior exposure to another stimulus.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976,2, 235–247.
Schnur, P. Selective attention: Effect of element preexposure on compound conditioning in rats.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1971,76, 123–130.
Schnur, P., &Lubow, R. E. Tests of the conditioned attention theory of latent inhibition: The effects of ITI and CS intensity during preexposure.Learning and Motivation, 1976,7, 540–550.
Szakmary, G. A. A note regarding conditioned attention theory.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 1977,9, 142–144.
Wagner, A. Priming in STM: An information-processing mechanism for self-generated or retrieval-generated depression in performance. In T. J. Tighe & R. N. Leaton (Eds.),Habituation: Perspectives from child development, animal behavior and neurophysiology. Hillsdale, N.J: Erlbaum, 1976.
Wolf, C., &Maltzman, I. Conditioned orienting reflex and amount of preconditioning habituation.Proceedings of the American Psychological Association, 1968,3, 129–130.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
This research, part of the second author’s master’s thesis, was supported by a grant from the Ford Foundation received through the Israel Foundations Trustees.
The paper was prepared while the first author was a visiting fellow at the Department of Psychology, Yale University.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lubow, R.E., Wagner, M. & Weiner, I. The effects of compound stimulus preexposure of two elements differing in salience on the acquisition of conditioned suppression. Animal Learning & Behavior 10, 483–489 (1982). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212288
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03212288