Human latent inhibition: Problems with the stimulus exposure effect

Byrom, Nicola; Msetfi, Rachel M.; Murphy, Robin A.

doi:10.3758/s13423-018-1455-4

Cited by 17 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 117 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In their review of human LI experiments, Byrom, Msetfi, and Murphy (2018) agree with Graham and McLaren (1998) in suggesting that none of the studies that they review provide sufficient evidence to conclude that preexposure to a stimulus is the sole reason for the retarded responding observed. Other factors, such as negative priming (see Tipper, 1985 and Graham & McLaren, 1998), learned irrelevance or relative novelty are quite likely to be responsible for their findings.…”

mentioning

confidence: 57%

Latent inhibition in young children: A developmental effect?

McLaren¹,

Civile²,

McLaren³

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous research by Kaniel & Lubow in 1986 found that young children (aged 4 -5 years) exhibited poorer learning (latent inhibition) to preexposed stimuli than older children (aged 7-10 years). The aim of our research was to develop a computer-based, child-friendly study that would replicate and extend the work of Kaniel & Lubow in a way that ruled out other, attention-based explanations of their effect. One hundred and four children and 32 undergraduate students took part in our experiment. This consisted of a preexposure/study phase in which participants were asked to press computer keys in response to clipart pictures of animals and dinosaurs. Each animal or dinosaur picture was preceded by one of 2 "warning signals" that acted as the preexposed stimuli (to which no response was required). In the test phase that followed, the participants had to either press the spacebar or withhold their response to each preexposed stimulus and two novel stimuli. They learned which response was correct by trial and error using the feedback provided. The accuracy and reaction time (RT) of the responses during the test phase were analyzed and indicated that the youngest children showed significantly lower mean accuracy and longer mean response times to the preexposed stimuli than to stimuli they had not been preexposed to. In contrast, the older children showed no significant differences in their responses to preexposed and novel stimuli. These results are consistent with those found by Kaniel & Lubow and as such provide additional evidence for latent inhibition in young children. We discuss the implications for theories of perceptual learning in humans.

show abstract

mentioning

confidence: 57%

Latent inhibition in young children: A developmental effect?

McLaren¹,

Civile²,

McLaren³

2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It has been attributed to attentional mechanisms (e.g., Hall & Rodriguez, 2010; Lubow et al, 1981; Mackintosh, 1975; Pearce & Hall, 1980; Le Pelley, 2004), interference between competing representations (e.g., Bouton, 1993; Hall & Rodriguez, 2010), and a reduction in the ability of elements of the cue to enter into associations with an outcome by way of context-cue associations (e.g., McLaren & Mackintosh, 2000; Wagner, 1981). To complicate matters further, there are allegations that demonstrations of “latent inhibition” in humans are unlikely to involve the same mechanisms as in animals (Byrom et al, 2018; Le Pelley & Schmidt-Hansen, 2010; Schmidt-Hansen & Le Pelley, 2012). Byrom et al (2018) specifically argued that it is difficult to determine latent-inhibition effects in humans because, as in the present experiment, human experiments appear to involve more procedures than simply pre-exposing a stimulus than do animal studies.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To complicate matters further, there are allegations that demonstrations of “latent inhibition” in humans are unlikely to involve the same mechanisms as in animals (Byrom et al, 2018; Le Pelley & Schmidt-Hansen, 2010; Schmidt-Hansen & Le Pelley, 2012). Byrom et al (2018) specifically argued that it is difficult to determine latent-inhibition effects in humans because, as in the present experiment, human experiments appear to involve more procedures than simply pre-exposing a stimulus than do animal studies. Le Pelley and Schmidt-Hansen as well as Le Pelley and Schmidt-Hansen both suggest that humans may be computing a simple probability of the outcome and integrating information across phases, a capacity that they do not attribute to animals and conclude that the effect observed in many human studies is a different effect than latent inhibition observed in non-human animals.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Response reduction and stimulus pre-exposure effects in a human conditioning method.

Nelson¹,

Sanjuan²,

Durán³

et al. 2021

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cogniti

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments with humans determined whether reduced conditioning following pre-exposure to the conditioned stimulus could be explained by conditioned inhibition (Experiment 1 [E1]) or extinction of responding that the conditioned stimulus (CS) might elicit during pre-exposure (Experiment 2 [E2]). In a video game task (Nelson et al., 2014), participants learned to respond to lights that signaled attacking spaceships. In E1, a red light was either pre-exposed or not pre-exposed between groups prior to conditioning with a green light. Summation tests of red combined with green produced no evidence of conditioned inhibition. In E2, participants received either no pre-exposure to the light, exposure in the same context in which the conditioning would occur, or exposure in a different context. These conditions were factorially combined with whether the light and spaceship were similar (same color) or dissimilar (different colors). In the similar conditions, the light elicited weak responding during pre-exposure, which extinguished. Such extinction did not occur in the dissimilar conditions. Conditioning occurred more rapidly in the similar conditions than in the dissimilar ones, but both conditions showed an equivalent context-dependent pre-exposure effect. Pre-exposure reduced conditioning regardless of whether it reduced responding prior to conditioning. The data are consistent with animal research (Lubow et al., 1968) showing no relation between responding during pre-exposure and the effects of stimulus preexposure. Theories which account for the effects of stimulus pre-exposure are discussed, with the conclusion that the data are most consistent with the ideas presented by Wagner (1981).

show abstract

“…These instruments are all reported to measure “schizotypy” but can reflect quite different underlying constructs, SPQ and Wisconsin reflecting a more DSM-oriented clinical derivation, while O-LIFE derives from a wider, more personality-driven approach ( Mason, 2015 ). Tasks also differed between these studies and how LI is measured can be critically important, especially whether the task is confounded by learned irrelevance ( Byrom et al, 2018 ; Granger et al, 2016 ).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Latent inhibition, aberrant salience, and schizotypy traits in cannabis users

Dawes

Quinn

Bickerdike

et al. 2022

Schizophrenia Research: Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aberrant salience processing may underlie the link between cannabis and psychosis, as posited in individuals with schizophrenia or high schizotypy. We investigated the relative effects of cannabis use, schizotypy status, and self-reported aberrant salience experiences on salience processing, measured using a latent inhibition (LI) task (Granger et al., 2016), in a non-clinical population. A university sample of 346 participants completed the Schizotypal Personality Questionnaire (SPQ), Aberrant Salience Inventory (ASI) the modified Cannabis Experience Questionnaire (CEQmv) and the LI task. Regression models and parallel (Bayesian and frequentist) t -tests or ANOVA (or non-parametric equivalents) examined differences in LI based on lifetime or current cannabis use (frequent use during previous year), as well as frequency of use. Mann-Whitney U tests assessed differences in SPQ and ASI scores based on current cannabis use. Neither lifetime nor current cannabis use was associated with significant change in LI scores. Current cannabis use was associated with both higher ‘Disorganised’ and ‘Cognitive-perceptual’ SPQ dimension scores and higher total and sub-scale ASI scores. No association was observed between LI score and SPQ total and dimension scores. Higher scores on ‘Senses sharpening’ and the ‘Heightened cognition’ ASI subscales predicted decreased LI scores. These data support previous findings of no association between cannabis use and abnormality in other associative learning tasks in young non-clinical populations, and elaborate the previously demonstrated association between self-reported cannabis use, schizotypy and aberrant salience. The association between dimensions of ASI and LI performance suggests this task may have potential as an experimental measure of aberrant salience.

show abstract

Human latent inhibition: Problems with the stimulus exposure effect

Cited by 17 publications

References 117 publications

Latent inhibition in young children: A developmental effect?

Latent inhibition in young children: A developmental effect?

Response reduction and stimulus pre-exposure effects in a human conditioning method.

Latent inhibition, aberrant salience, and schizotypy traits in cannabis users

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About