Enhancement of Pavlovian conditioned inhibition achieved by posttraining inflation of the training excitor.
ABSTRACT In two conditioned lick suppression experiments using water-deprived rats, we examined the effects of following Pavlovian conditioned inhibition training (i.e., A-US/AX-NoUS) with pairings of the training excitor (A) and the unconditioned stimulus (US). Experiments 1 and 2 assessed the effects of this posttraining inflation treatment on Pavlovian conditioned inhibition using a summation test and a retardation test, respectively. Both experiments revealed that subjects exposed to inflation treatment demonstrated behavior indicative of enhanced conditioned inhibition compared to subjects that did not receive inflation treatment. The results in conjunction with other recent findings suggest that posttraining associative deflation (i.e., extinction of A) and inflation effects are more symmetrical than has previously been realized.
[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Associative learning theories assume that cue interaction and, specifically, retrospective revaluation occur only when the target cue is previously trained in compound with the to-be-revalued cue. However, there are recent demonstrations of retrospective revaluation in the absence of compound training (e.g., Matute & Pineño, 1998a, 1998b). Nevertheless, it seems reasonable to assume that cue interaction should be stronger when the cues are trained together than when they are trained apart. In two experiments with humans, we directly compared compound and elemental training of cues. The results showed that retrospective revaluation in the elemental condition can be as strong as and, sometimes, stronger than that in the compound condition. This suggests that within-compound associations are not necessary for retrospective revaluation to occur and that these effects can possibly be best understood in the framework of general interference theory.Animal learning & behavior 08/2002; 30(3):228-38.
Article: Mechanisms underlying retarded emergence of conditioned responding following inhibitory training: evidence for the comparator hypothesis.[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: The comparator hypothesis posits that conditioned responding is determined by a comparison at the time of testing between the associative strengths of the conditioned stimulus (CS) and stimuli proximal to the CS at the time of conditioning. The hypothesis treats all associations as being excitatory and treats conditioned inhibition as the behavioral consequence of a CS that is less excitatory than its comparator stimuli. Conditioned lick suppression by rats was used to differentiate four possible sources of retarded responding to an inhibitory CS. These include habituation to the unconditioned stimulus (US), latent inhibition to the CS, blocking of the CS-US association by the conditioning context, and enhanced excitatory associations to the comparator stimuli. Prior research has demonstrated the first three phenomena. Therefore, we employed parameters expected to highlight the fourth one--the comparator process. In Experiment 1, our negative contingency training was shown to produce a conditioned inhibitor that passed inhibitory summation and retardation tests. In Experiment 2 we found transfer of retardation from an inhibitory CS to a novel stimulus when the location where retardation-test training occurred was excitatory, which is indicative of contextual blocking and/or comparator effects. In Experiment 3, extinction of the conditioning context was found to attenuate retardation regardless of whether extinction occurred before or after the CS-US pairings of the retardation test. This indicates that much of the present retardation was due to the comparator process rather than to contextual blocking. Experiment 4 demonstrated that habituation to the US did not contribute to retardation in the present case. Collectively, these studies suggest that retardation following inhibitory training can be explained without recourse to any of the traditional mechanisms of conditioned inhibition.Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes 08/1987; 13(3):310-22. · 2.05 Impact Factor