An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect

Casa, L.G. De la; Lubow, R. E.

doi:10.3758/bf03192913

Cited by 52 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 34 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The preexposed rats showed few fear (freezing) responses whereas the control animals showed substantial levels of freezing when tested after a 1-d delay, demonstrating a latent inhibitory effect of context preexposure. Both preexposed and control rats showed similar and substantial levels of freezing when tested after a 14-d delay, demonstrating that the latent inhibitory effect of context preexposure was lost across the delay between conditioning and testing (see also Westbrook et al 2000;Leung et al 2007; but see De la Casa and Lubow 2002;Wheeler et al 2004 for the opposite effect). A similar loss of latent inhibition across a delay has been reported in rats made sick by an injection of lithium chloride after ingestion of a preexposed flavor (Aguado et al 1994).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Appetitive context conditioning proactively, but transiently, interferes with expression of counterconditioned context fear

Holmes

Westbrook

2014

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments used rats to study appetitive-aversive transfer. Rats trained to eat a palatable food in a distinctive context and shocked in that context ate and did not freeze when tested 1 d later but froze and did not eat when tested 14 d later. These results were associatively mediated (Experiments 1 and 2), observed when rats were or were not food deprived (Experiments 1 and 2), and were not due to latent inhibition (Experiment 3). In contrast, rats trained to eat in the context and shocked there 13 d later froze and did not eat when tested 1 d after the shocked exposure. However, rats that received an additional eating session in the context 1 d before the shocked exposure ate and did not freeze when tested 1 d after the shocked exposure (Experiment 4). The results show that appetitive conditioning transiently interferes with aversive conditioning. They are discussed in terms of a weak context-shock association becoming stronger with the lapse of time (so-called fear incubation) or of the interference by the context -food association becoming weaker with the lapse of time.Pavlovian conditioning imbues neutral stimuli with emotional and/or motivational significance. A relatively innocuous stimulus paired with an aversive shock unconditioned stimulus (US) becomes a conditioned stimulus (CS), eliciting protective reflexes and defensive responses. That CS also suppresses appetitive activity (e.g., Estes and Skinner 1941), punishes contingent instrumental responses (e.g., Azrin 1960; for review, see Azrin and Holz 1966), and increases avoidance responses (e.g., Rescorla and LoLordo 1965; for review, see Rescorla and Solomon 1967). In contrast, a CS paired with an attractive food US elicits consummatory reflexes and approach responses, suppresses defensive responses (e.g., Grossen et al. 1969;Overmier and Bull 1970;Overmier et al. 1971), reinforces contingent instrumental responses (for review, see Wike 1966;Hendry 1969;Fantino 1977), and can increase responding in Pavlovian-Instrumental tasks (e.g., Estes 1948; for review, see Holmes et al. 2010). Such results have led to opponent-process theories of motivation (e.g., Konorski 1967;Bindra 1974;Gray 1975;Dickinson and Dearing 1979;Toates 1986). These theories differ in several respects but share the view that aversive and appetitive CSs excite contrasting central motivational states or systems and that excitation of one depresses activity in the other (for review, see Dickinson and Pearce 1977).An implication of these theories is that the development of defensive responses across pairings of an appetitive CS and an aversive US will be impaired, as will approach responses across pairings of an aversive CS and an appetitive US. This impairment will occur because the motivational information originally encoded by the CS is the opposite of that appropriate to the new US. Consistent with this implication, the development of approach responses is impaired across pairings of an aversive CS and an appetitive US (e.g., Peck and Bouton 1990), as is the development of wi...

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Appetitive context conditioning proactively, but transiently, interferes with expression of counterconditioned context fear

Holmes

Westbrook

2014

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In latent inhibition (LI) of CTA, animals are introduced to the novel taste a few days before the CTA, and this pre-exposure weakens their aversion to the taste, compared with that which follows CTA alone (Revusky and Bedarf 1967;De la Casa and Lubow 2002). The weakening of the aversion indicates that the taste was learned, became familiar, and consolidated after or during the pre-exposure, and that this resulted in reduction of the strength of the CTA to the same taste.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitation of taste memory acquisition by experiencing previous novel taste is protein-synthesis dependent

Merhav¹,

Rosenblum²

2008

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Very little is known about the biological and molecular mechanisms that determine the effect of previous experience on implicit learning tasks. In the present study, we first defined weak and strong taste inputs according to measurements in the behavioral paradigm known as latent inhibition of conditioned taste aversion. We then demonstrated that a strong novel taste input facilitated acquisition of the memory of subsequent weak taste input in inverse correlation with the time interval between the inputs. However, not only was a strong taste input unable to rescue an immediately subsequent strong taste input when the gustatory cortex was under the influence of the protein-synthesis inhibitor, anisomycin, but the effect of the interaction was to reduce the variation among individual taste memories. Taken together, these results demonstrate that taste memory facilitation, induced by previously experiencing a different unimodal taste input, depended on time, novelty, and directionality. Moreover, the results imply that learning is enhanced on the level of acquisition but not of molecular consolidation.

show abstract

“…This was evident in both the preexposed and the nonpreexposed subjects. The basis for this effect is not known (and was not directly addressed in the present study), but it is possible that exposure to the injection cues themselves (during the extinction phase) may have latently inhibited these cues, weakening their association with morphine during the conditioning phase (see De la Casa & Lubow, 2000, 2002Hall & Channell, 1986;Lubow & De la Casa, 2005). Consequently, saccharin acquired greater associative strength with morphine, resulting in stronger taste aversions.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 90%

The role of injection cues in the production of the morphine preexposure effect in taste aversion learning

Davis

Brugada

Riley

2010

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Given that the attenuating effects of LiCl preexposure on LiCl‐induced taste aversions have been reported to be controlled associatively, via injection‐related cues, the present experiment examined the effects of morphine exposure on morphine‐induced taste aversions to assess the generality of this control. Specifically, in Experiment 1 rats were exposed to morphine every other day for five exposures prior to aversion conditioning in which saccharin was paired with morphine (5 mg/kg) for five trials. Between preexposure and conditioning, rats were either injected with saline for eight consecutive days (extinction) or received no treatment. Morphine exposure attenuated the morphine CTA, an attenuation unaffected by saline injections (i.e., extinction of the morphine‐associated cues). Experiment 2 showed that increasing the number of extinction injections to 16 had no effect on morphine preexposure, although it was somewhat weakened in all preexposed groups due to the increased time between preexposure and conditioning. Unlike with LiCl, the attenuating effects of morphine preexposure in aversion learning are most likely controlled by nonassociative mechanisms, such as drug tolerance. Supported by a grant from the Mellon Foundation to ALR.

show abstract

An empirical analysis of the super-latent inhibition effect

Cited by 52 publications

References 34 publications

Appetitive context conditioning proactively, but transiently, interferes with expression of counterconditioned context fear

Appetitive context conditioning proactively, but transiently, interferes with expression of counterconditioned context fear

Facilitation of taste memory acquisition by experiencing previous novel taste is protein-synthesis dependent

The role of injection cues in the production of the morphine preexposure effect in taste aversion learning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About