Competition for associative strength between a punctate signal and contextual stimuli: Effect of signal preexposure versus context preexposure

Maes, J.H.R.; Vossen, J.M.H.

doi:10.1016/0376-6357(93)90010-o

Cited by 5 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 44 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Methodologically, the control group had the same apparatus exposure as the reacquisition groups had. There is evidence that prior exposure to apparatus cues has a paradoxical effect; specifically, latent inhibition of the apparatus cues facilitates acquisition when pairings of a discrete CS with the US are introduced (Grant & Young, 1971;Hinson, 1982;Maes & Vossen, 1993). Hence, the use of apparatus exposure may set a high baseline, making it more difficult to detect rapid reacquisition but easier to detect retarded reacquisition.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

Weidemann

Kehoe

2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

Weidemann

Kehoe

2003

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It is well established that both a context and a discrete CS will compete to become associated with an unconditioned stimulus (US), such as a shock. The degree to which these stimuli will become associated with the US is dependent how well they predict it (Rescorla 1984;Mais and Vossen 1993). For example, pairing a brief discrete stimulus with presentation of shock will often substantially overshadow learning about the background context as it more accurately predicts shock delivery (Rescorla 1984;Mais and Vossen 1993).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are many factors that can influence the degree of competition between discrete and contextual cues. For example, Mais and Vossen (1993) found that preexposing a context prior to conditioning in the absence of any conditioned or unconditioned stimuli resulted in substantially less conditioning to the context, making the CS a better predictor of the shock. There are also a number of reports demonstrating that lengthening the intertrial interval (ITI) between successive CS-US pairings increases learning about the CS relative to the context (McAllister et al 1974;Holland 2000).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The degree to which these stimuli will become associated with the US is dependent how well they predict it (Rescorla 1984;Mais and Vossen 1993). For example, pairing a brief discrete stimulus with presentation of shock will often substantially overshadow learning about the background context as it more accurately predicts shock delivery (Rescorla 1984;Mais and Vossen 1993). The ability to demonstrate greater learning about the more accurate predictor is attributable in part to the ability of animals to change the degree of attention directed toward all present cues on the basis of how well they predict an outcome (Mackintosh 1975).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The prelimbic cortex directs attention toward predictive cues during fear learning

Sharpe

Killcross

2015

Learn. Mem.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prelimbic cortex is argued to promote conditioned fear expression, at odds with appetitive research implicating this region in attentional processing. Consistent with an attentional account, we report that the effect of prelimbic lesions on fear expression depends on the degree of competition between contextual and discrete cues. Further, when competition from contextual cues is low, we found that PL inactivation resulted in animals expressing fear toward irrelevant discrete cues; an effect selective to inactivation during the learning phase and not during retrieval. These data demonstrate that the prelimbic cortex modulates attention toward cues to preferentially direct fear responding on the basis of their predictive value.Learning is selective to cues which have most reliably signaled an outcome in the past. Restricting learning to predictive cues relies on the ability to preferentially attend toward cues that are better predictors of an event (Mackintosh 1975;Le Pelley 2004). In appetitive procedures, manipulation of prelimbic (PL) activity impairs extra-dimensional set shifting, response set shifting, and utilizing contextual cues to change the degree of attention allocated toward discriminative stimuli (Birrell and Brown 2000;Floresco et al. 2008Marquis et al. 2007. Recently, this has been characterized as a specific deficit in modulating the degree of attention directed toward cues on the basis of their associative history (Sharpe and Killcross 2014). Thus, the PL cortex is argued to be the neural locus of changes in attention toward cues on the basis of how well they predict an outcome, restricting learning to cues which are best predictors of an outcome (Sharpe and Killcross 2014).However, findings that the degree of PL activity correlates with the magnitude of a conditioned response to fearful stimuli have been interpreted as a role for this region in the expression of conditioned responding (Corcoran and Quirk 2007; BurgosRobles et al. 2009;Sierra-Mercado et al. 2011). This is despite research demonstrating that manipulation of PL functioning during aversive procedures has produced equivocal results. For example, pretraining lesions of the dorsal medial prefrontal cortex, predominantly localized to PL cortex, have been shown to enhance fear conditioning to both contextual and discrete stimuli (Morgan and LeDoux 1995), enhance learning about a context at the expense of a CS (Lacroix et al. 2000), or have no effect (Holson 1986).These differences may be accounted for by appealing to the role of the PL cortex in directing attention toward predictive cues. More specifically, differences in parameters used in these studies may produce a differential degree of competition between contextual and discrete cues. It is well established that both a context and a discrete CS will compete to become associated with an unconditioned stimulus (US), such as a shock. The degree to which these stimuli will become associated with the US is dependent how well they predict it (Rescorla 1984;Mais and Vossen 1993). For e...

show abstract

“…This response reflects a simple association between box and shock (e.g., Fanselow and Tighe, 1988;Maes and Vossen, 1992). Contextual stimuli can even acquire direct excitatory associative strength in a standard classical conditioning experiment in which a discrete stimulus provides a more predictive signal for the occurrence of a US than does the context (e.g., Maes and Vossen, 1993a;Williams et al, 1992 Mues,J.M.H. Vossen/ Behal'ioural Processes 37 ( /9<)6) [167][168][169][170][171][172][173][174][175][176][177][178][179][180][181][182][183][184] In the literature on animal learning, either explicitly or implicitly, reference has been made to the possibility that external contextual stimuli can also acquire a direct inhibitory associative strength (see, e.g., formal models of associative learning like that of Mackintosh, 1975;Pearce, 1987;Pearce and Hall, 1980;Rescorla and Wagner, 1972).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential inhibition using contextual stimuli

Maes

Vossen

1996

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present experiments examined whether external contextual stimuli can acquire inhibitory properties through a simple differential context-reinforcement procedure. Rats first received discrimination training sessions in which an electric footshock was consistently delivered in one context, but not in a second, different context. In Experiments lA and lB, summation and retardation tests were subsequently performed using the non-reinforced context. Each of these tests failed to reveal contextual conditioned inhibition. In Experiment 2, a summation and retardation test were performed using a contextual stimulus that was unique to the non-reinforced context. Weak but significant contextual inhibition was found. It was suggested that contextual stimuli that are unique to the non-reinforced context did acquire inhibitory strength in each experiment, but that in Experiments lA and lB, expression of this inhibition during testing had been masked by the concurrent presence of excitation from elements that the non-reinforced context had in common with the reinforced context.

show abstract

Competition for associative strength between a punctate signal and contextual stimuli: Effect of signal preexposure versus context preexposure

Cited by 5 publications

References 44 publications

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

Savings in classical conditioning in the rabbit as a function of extended extinction

The prelimbic cortex directs attention toward predictive cues during fear learning

Differential inhibition using contextual stimuli

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About