Associative and nonassociative processes in latent inhibition: an elaboration of the Pearce–Hall model

Disentangling the effects of context change and context familiarity on Latent Inhibition with a Conditioned Taste Aversion procedure

“…The modulation of CTA-LI by the different context combinations observed in our experiments can be interpreted in light of those theories which consider LI to be the result of two competing associations at the time of testing: a CS-no consequences association established at preexposure, and a CS-US association formed during conditioning (e.g., Bouton, 1993;Hall & Rodriguez, 2010). More specifically, when the animals are confronted with conflicting information at testing-due to the presence of the CS, which predicts both no consequences and the aversive US-they use the context to disambiguate the meaning of the stimulus (Bouton, 1993(Bouton, , 1994.…”

“…When a neutral stimulus is repeatedly presented without consequences it results in one or more of a range of processes, including a progressive decrease of orienting responses (Sokolov, 1963;Turpin, 1983), the gradual reduction of attentional responses elicited by the stimulus (Lubow, 1989), the reduction of stimulus associability (e.g., Mackintosh, 1975;Pearce & Hall, 1980), the development of an association between the context and the stimulus (e.g., Wagner, 1978), and/or an association between the stimulus and the absence of following consequences (e.g., Bouton, 1993;Hall & Rodriguez, 2010). Some of the aforementioned processes, or a combination of them, determines that, when the preexposed stimulus is subsequently presented again and is followed by an Unconditioned Stimulus (US), the resulting Conditioned Response (CR) is weaker as compared to that elicited by a stimulus that has not been preexposed before conditioning.…”

“…theoretical perspectives as a result of an external inhibition process induced by context novelty (Lubow, Weiner, & Schnur, 1981;Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray, 1996), as the result of an association established between the preexposure context and the preexposed stimulus (Miller, Kasprow, & Schachtman, 1986;Wagner, 1978Wagner, , 1981, or as the result of the contextual control over a stimulusno consequence association established during non-reinforced stimulus presentations at the preexposure stage (Bouton, 1993;Hall & Rodriguez, 2010).…”

Contextual control of flavor neophobia

“…The idea of a safe memory trace is also compatible with the suggestion that a prior history of no aversive consequences in the familiar context could facilitate the acquisition of a hypothetical flavor-no consequence association [36,37], which would result in a stronger safe memory trace of the flavor [4] inducing a faster habituation process.…”

Error Correction in Latent Inhibition and its Disruption by Opioid Receptor Blockade with Naloxone

“…Recently, Hall and Rodriguez (2010) proposed that this attentional loss occurs as a result of an inhibitory or 'stimulus-no event' association being formed during preexposure, whose rule of establishment is governed by the same error-correction mechanism that regulates conditioning and extinction. It holds that presentation of a novel stimulus evokes an innate expectation that some event will occur.…”