Analysis of the learned irrelevance effect in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning

Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology Section B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology

Volumn 58, Issue 2, 2005, Pages 141-162

  Bonardi, Charlotte ^a,b   Hall, Geoffrey ^a   Ong, Siaw Yann ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL; APPETITE; ARTICLE; ATTENTION; CONDITIONED REFLEX; HABITUATION; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); LEARNING; MALE; STATISTICS;

ANIMALS; APPETITIVE BEHAVIOR; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; ATTENTION; CONDITIONING, CLASSICAL; GENERALIZATION (PSYCHOLOGY); HABITUATION, PSYCHOPHYSIOLOGIC; INHIBITION (PSYCHOLOGY); MALE; PROBABILITY LEARNING; STATISTICS; TRANSFER (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 17644371413     PISSN: 02724995     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/02724990444000087     Document Type: Article

References (14)

1. 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.
2. Baker, A. G. (1977). Conditioned inhibition arising from a between-sessions negative correlation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 144-155.
3. Baker, A. G., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1977). Excitatory and inhibitory conditioning following uncorrelated presentations of CS and UCS. Animal Learning & Behavior, 5, 315-319.
4. Bennett, C. H., Maldonado, A., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1995). Learned irrelevance is not the sum of exposure to CS and US. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 48B, 117-128.
5. Bennett, C. H., Wills, S. J., Oakeshott, S. M., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). Is the context specificity of latent inhibition a sufficient explanation of learned irrelevance? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 239-254.
6. Bonardi, C., & Hall, G. (1996). Learned irrelevance: No more than the sum of CS and US preexposure effects? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 183-191.
7. Bonardi, C., & Ong, S. Y. (2003). Learned irrelevance: A contemporary overview. Quarterly Journal of Psychology, 56B, 80-89.
8. Kremer, E. F. (1971). Truly random and traditional control procedures in CER conditioning in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 76, 441-448.
9. Lubow, R. E. (1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10. Mackintosh, N. J. (1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R. A. Hinde & J. S. Hinde (Eds.), Constraints on learning (pp. 75-96). London: Academic Press.
11. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variation in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
12. Matzel, L. D., Schachtman, T. R., & Miller, R. R. (1988). Learned irrelevance exceeds the sum of CS-preexposure and US-preexposure deficits. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 311-319.
13. Randich, A., & LoLordo, V. M. (1979). Associative and non-associative theories of the UCS preexposure phenomenon: Implications for Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 523-548.
14. Rescorla, R. A. (2000). Associative changes with a random CS-US relationship. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 325-340.