Conditioned suppression tests of the context-blocking hypothesis: Testing in the absence of the preconditioned context.

Ayres, John J. B.; Bombace, Joan C.; Shurtleff, David B.; Vigorito, Michael

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.11.1.1

Cited by 24 publications

(35 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Instead of interspersing USs with CS-US pairings, they preexposed the USs in the training context before reinforced compound or elemental training. US preexposure appeared to attenuate responding to the elementally trained CS, an effect that is widely regarded as blocking by the context (e.g., Ayres et al, 1985). In contrast, US preexposure enhanced responding to a CS that otherwise would have been overshadowed by its companion.…”

Section: Partial Reinforcement and Overshadowingmentioning

confidence: 88%

Determinants of cue interactions

Wheeler

Miller

2008

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In a Pavlovian conditioning situation, there are many training variables that may affect responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS), such as contiguity, contingency, and the presence of other CSs. This review describes recent experiments that show that some manipulations that usually decrease responding to a CS may have the opposite effect when they are combined with other normally pernicious manipulations. A theoretical framework that explains these so-called counteraction effects is provided. The apparent boundary conditions on the effects and limitations of the theory are discussed.

show abstract

Section: Partial Reinforcement and Overshadowingmentioning

confidence: 88%

Determinants of cue interactions

Wheeler

Miller

2008

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He proposed that the context preexposure experience established a context representation that could be retrieved by a subsequent brief exposure to the context prior to the shock. The context pre-exposure facilitation effect has been reported numerous times (e.g., Ayres et al 1985;Rudy and Morledge 1994;Westbrook et al 1994;Rudy et al 2002;Stote and Fanselow 2004;Rudy and Wright-Hardesty 2005).…”

Section: Acquiring a Context Representationmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, several sessions of fear conditioning in which just the shock US is presented in the conditioning context will block subsequent conditioning to a phasic CS subsequently paired with shock in that context (e.g., Ayres et al 1985;Randich and Ross 1985).…”

Section: Association and Competitionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context representations, context functions, and the parahippocampal–hippocampal system

Rudy¹

2009

Learn. Mem.

271

309

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Psychologists and neurobiologists have a long-standing interest in understanding how the context surrounding the events of our lives is represented and how it influences our behavior. The hippocampal formation emerged very early as a major contributor to how context is represented and functions. There is a large literature examining its contribution that on the surface reveals an array of conflicting outcomes and controversy. This review reveals that these conflicts can be resolved by building Nadel and Willner's dual-process theory of context representations. Two general conclusions emerge: (1) There are two neural systems that can support context representations and functions-a neocortical system composed primarily of perirhinal and postrhinal cortices and a hippocampal system that includes perirhinal, postrhinal, entorhinal cortices, and the hippocampal formation. (2) These two systems are not equivalent-some context representations and functions are uniquely supported by the hippocampal system. These conclusions are discussed in the context of canonical ideas about the special properties of the hippocampal system that enable it to make unique contributions to memory.Everything we experience happens somewhere. The term ''context'' is often used to denote this ''somewhere.'' In the analysis of learning and memory, the context is like the setting for a stage play (Medin and Reynolds 1985). It provides the background for the real action in the drama-the main events. More importantly, as a consequence of learning and memory processes, the context often helps to select appropriate behaviors and determine the explicit and implicit content of our thoughts. Thus, it is not surprising that psychologists have a long-standing empirical and theoretical interest in understanding just what makes up a representation of context and how context representations interact with the main events of our lives to influence our behavior (see Balsam and Tomie 1985).More recently, neurobiologists have increased their interest in the problem of linking context representations and functions to brain systems. The hippocampal formation emerged quite early as a major focal point among many researchers. As a result, there is a substantial literature linking the hippocampal formation and context. However, on the surface, this research yields a dismaying set of conflicting results, with many findings that the hippocampal formation plays a critical role in supporting the influence of context on memory and behavior and many other findings that it does not.The goal of this article is to bring some clarity and order to this state of affairs. I start by providing a working definition of ''context'' that implicitly underpins its experimental analysis. I then describe several different functions of context that have been studied in the laboratory and are assumed to be theoretically important. I then introduce and build on a dual-process theory of context representations that was put forth several years ago by Lynn Nadel, Jeffrey Willner, and colleague...

show abstract

“…Such correlations are not always observed (e.g., Ayres, Bombace, Shurtleff, & Vigorito, 1985). The problem is exacerbated by the fact that contextual conditioning, at least with aversive USs, occurs rapidly (cf.…”

mentioning

confidence: 94%

US preexposures retard excitatory and facilitate inhibitory conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response

Saladin

Tait

1986

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of US preexposure on differential conditioning of the rabbit's nictitating membrane response. Both experiments consisted of three phases: a 10-day US preexposure phase, a 7-day differential conditioning phase, and a 3-day retardation of learning test for inhibition. In Experiment 1, US preexposures retarded the development of excitation to CS+ but facilitated the development of inhibition to CS-. In Experiment 2, half of the preexposed subjects received the preexposures in one experimental environment and differential conditioning in a second environment. The remaining preexposed subjects received both phases in a single environment. Retarded excitatory and facilitated inhibitory conditioning were observed only in the preexposed subjects that received both phases in the same environment. Rabbits that received a context shift performed at control levels. The results are discussed in terms of current theories of US preexposure effects, and the best account was provided by a modified associative theory.

show abstract

Conditioned suppression tests of the context-blocking hypothesis: Testing in the absence of the preconditioned context.

Cited by 24 publications

References 37 publications

Determinants of cue interactions

Determinants of cue interactions

Context representations, context functions, and the parahippocampal–hippocampal system

US preexposures retard excitatory and facilitate inhibitory conditioning of the rabbit’s nictitating membrane response

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About