Interactions between retroactive-interference and context-mediated treatments that impair Pavlovian conditioned responding

Learning and Behavior

Volumn 35, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 27-35

  Wheeler, Daniel S ^a   Miller, Ralph R ^a  

^a BINGHAMTON UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; COMPETITION; CONDITIONING; EXPECTATION; FEMALE; MALE; NONHUMAN; RAT; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TRAINING;

EID: 34249784541     PISSN: 15434494     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3758/bf03196071     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. ANDERSON, M. C., BJORK, E. L.& BJORK, R. A. (2000). Retrieval-induced forgetting: Evidence for a recall-specific mechanism. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 522-530.
2. BARELA, P. B. (1999). Theoretical mechanisms underlying the trial-spacing effect in Pavlovian fear conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 177-193.
3. BLAISDELL, A. P., BRISTOL, A. S., GUNTHER, L. M., & MILLER, R. R. (1998). Overshadowing and latent inhibition counteract each other. Support for the comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 24, 335-351.
4. DENNISTON, J. C., SAVASTANO, H. I., & MILLER, R. R. (2001). The extended comparator hypothesis: Learning by contiguity, responding by relative strength. In R. R. Mower & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theories (pp. 65-117). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
5. DICKINSON, A., & BURKE, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 60-80.
6. ESCOBAR, M., MATUTE, H., & MILLER, R. R. (2001). Cues trained apart compete for behavioral control in rats: Convergence with the associative interference literature. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 130, 91-115.
7. GALLISTEL, C. R., & GIBBON, I. (2000). Time, rate, and conditioning. Psychological Review, 107, 289-344.
8. GIBBON, J., & BALSAM, P. (1981). Spreading association in time. In C. M. Locurto, H. S. Terrace, & J. Gibbon (Eds.), Autoshaping and conditioning theory (pp. 219-253). New York: Academic Press.
9. GUNTHER, L. M., & MILLER, R. R. (2000). Prevention of the degraded-contingency effect by signalling training trials. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 53B, 97-119.
10. ISHII, K. (1999). Attenuation of latent inhibition after compound conditioning. Japanese Psychological Research, 41, 102-111.
11. KASPROW, W. J., SCHACHTMAN, T. R., & MILLER, R. R. (1987). The comparator hypothesis of conditioned response generation: Manifest conditioned excitation and inhibition as a function of relative excitatory strengths of CS and conditioning context at the time of testing. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 393-406.
12. LOVIBOND, P. F., PRESTON, G. C., & MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1984). Context specificity of conditioning, extinction, and latent inhibition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 360-373.
13. LOY, I., & HALL, G. (2002). Taste aversion after ingestion of lithium chloride: An associative analysis. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 55B, 365-380.
14. LUBOW, R. E. (1989). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
15. LUBOW, R. E., & GEWIRTZ, J. C. (1993). Latent inhibition in humans: Data, theory, and implications for schizophtenia. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 87-103.
16. LUBOW, R. E., & MOORE, A. U. (1939). Latent inhibition: The effect of nonreinforced pre-exposure to the conditional stimulus. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 52, 415-419.
17. MACKINTOSH, N. J. (1973). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
18. MAIER, S. F., JACKSON, R. L., & TOMIE, A. (1987). Potentiation, overshadowing, and prior exposure to inescapable shock. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 13, 260-270.
19. MILLER, R. R., & ESCOBAR, M. (2002). Associative interference between cues and between outcomes presented together and presented apart: An integration. Behavioural Processes, 57, 163-185.
20. MILLER, R. R., & MATUTE, H. (1996). Biological significance in forward and backward blocking: Resolution of a discrepancy between animal conditioning and human causal judgment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 125, 370-386.
21. MILLER, R. R., & MATZEL, L. D. (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. 51-92). San Diego: Academic Press.
22. NAKAJIMA, S., KA, H., & IMADA, H. (1999). Summation of overshadowing and latent inhibition in rat's conditioned taste aversion: Scapegoat technique works for familiar meals. Appetite, 33, 299-307.
23. NAKAJIMA, S., & NAGAISHI, T. (2003). Summation of latent inhibition and overshadowing in a generalized bait shyness paradigm of rats. Behavioural Processes, 69, 369-377.
24. PAVLOV, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (V. Anrep, Trans.). New York: Dover.
25. PEARCE, J. M., & HALL, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
26. RESCORLA, R. A. (1968). Probability of shock in the presence and absence of CS in fear conditioning. Journal of Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 66, 1-5.
27. RESCORLA, R. A., & WAGNER, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 6449). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
28. STOUT, S. C., CHANG, R., & MILLER, R. R. (2003). Trial spacing is a determinant of cue interaction. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 29, 23-38.
29. URCELAY, G. P., & MILLER, R. R. (2006). Counteraction between overshadowing and degraded contingency treatments: Support for the extended comparator hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 21-32.
30. URUSHIHARA, K., & MILLER, R. R. (2006a). Overshadowing and the outcome-alone exposure effect counteract each other. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 32, 253-270.
31. URUSHIHARA, K., & MILLER, R. R. (2006b). Partial reinforcement and CS duration effects counteract overshadowing in select situations. Manuscript submitted for publication.
32. URUSHIHARA, K., STOUT, S. C. & MILLER, R. R. (2004). The basic laws of conditioning differ for elemental cues and cues trained in compound. Psychological Science, 15, 268-271.
33. URUSHIHARA, K., WHEELER, D. S., & MILLER, R. R. (2004). Outcome pre- and postexposure effects: Retention interval interacts with primacy and recency. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30, 283-298.
34. VAN HAMME, L. J., & WASSERMAN, E. A. (1994). Cue competition in causality judgments: The role of nonpresentation of compound stimulus elements. Learning & Motivation, 25, 127-151.
35. WAGNER, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.), Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5-47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
36. WESTBROOK, R. F., HOMEWOOD, J., HORN, K., & CLARKE, J. C. (1983). Flavour-odour compound conditioning: Odour-potentiation and flavour-attenuation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35B, 13-33.
37. WITNAUER, J. E., & MILLER, R. R. (2006). Degraded contingency revisited: Posttraining extinction of a cover stimulus attenuates a target cue's behavioral control. Manuscript submitted for publication.