Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory.

Lubow, R. E.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.2.2.163

Cited by 419 publications

(366 citation statements)

References 17 publications

(20 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

341

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Several theories have emphasized that the representation of the CS (and its lack of significant consequence) acquired during the pre-exposure phase is directly responsible for the emergence of the LI effect, although the theories differ in the characterization of this psychological process involved, which ranges from selective attention (Mackintosh, 1975a;Pearce and Hall, 1980;Lubow, 1989), mnemonic proactive interference (Bouton, 1993;Kraemer and Spear, 1992), the selective expression of learned behavior (Weiner, 1990;Gray et al, 1991), or the formation of associative links between the preexposed CS and contextual cues (Kruschke, 2001;Escobar et al, 2002;Schmajuk et al, 1996Schmajuk et al, , 1998. Recent evidence derived from lesion studies in rats has further emphasized the view that LI reflects a weakened expression of conditioned responding in the pre-exposed subjects (Jeanblanc et al, 2002).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The reduction in the vigor of the CR observed following nonreinforced CS preexposure is referred to as latent inhibition (LI; Lubow and Moore, 1959), and that following US pre-exposure is referred to as the US pre-exposure effect (USPEE; Randich and LoLordo, 1979). Both phenomena can be demonstrated in numerous species, including human and rodent, and across a variety of associative conditioning procedures (Lubow, 1989;Cannon et al, 1975;Batson and Best, 1979;Baker et al, 1981).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It has been suggested that LI stems from the development of selective attention away from the pre-exposed stimulus, thus diminishes the perceived salience of the CS during conditioning (Mackintosh, 1975a;Lubow et al, 1981;Lubow, 1989). LI has also been attributed to the acquisition of an association between the to-be-conditioned CS with the absence of a significant consequence during pre-exposure, which later interferes with either the subsequent expression (Gray et al, 1991Weiner, 1990Weiner, , 2003 or retrieval (Bouton, 1993;Kraemer and Spear, 1992) of the CS-US association.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Expression of the CS- and US-Pre-Exposure Effects in the Conditioned Taste Aversion Paradigm and Their Abolition Following Systemic Amphetamine Treatment in C57BL6/J Mice

Meyer

Chang

Feldon

et al. 2004

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In classical conditioning, pre-exposures to either the to-be-conditioned stimulus (CS) or unconditioned stimulus (US) can retard subsequent conditioning between the CS and US. The present experiment evaluated the expression of these two pre-exposure effects in mice of the C57BL6/J strain, one of the most common background strains for genetically altered mice. We tested whether their expression would be disrupted by amphetamine treatment (2.5 mg/kg, i.p.) in a conditioned taste aversion paradigm with sucrose as the CS and lithium chloride-induced gastric malaise as the US. We found that one pre-exposure (PE) to either the CS or the US reduced aversion to sucrose solution in the controls following conditioning, but no such tendency was evident in the amphetamine-treated mice. The present study represents the first report of amphetamine-induced disruption of the CS-PE effect (ie latent inhibition) in mice, and the first attempt to compare it directly with the US-PE effect in any species. It extended previous reports in rats and humans, suggesting that the sensitivity of latent inhibition to amphetamine is largely comparable across species, thereby lending credence to the use of the latent inhibition effect as a behavioral assay for psychotic-like phenotype in transgenic mice. The parallel observation in the US-PE effect further indicates that its expression, at least in the present conditioned taste aversion paradigm, may also be under similar influence of the dopaminergic system.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Expression of the CS- and US-Pre-Exposure Effects in the Conditioned Taste Aversion Paradigm and Their Abolition Following Systemic Amphetamine Treatment in C57BL6/J Mice

Meyer

Chang

Feldon

et al. 2004

Neuropsychopharmacol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The relation between B and the outcome is not processed attentionally, it was argued, because the predictive value of A captures all of the learner's available attention. Associative blocking, and a few other related phenomena, such as the CS preexposure effect (Lubow, 1989) and, more recently, highlighting (Kruschke, 2001), have led contemporary researchers to emphasize the crucial role of attention in associative learning and to elaborate various attention-based models (see Kruschke, 2003Kruschke, , 2005.…”

Section: An Attentional Account Of Adjacent and Nonadjacent Dependencmentioning

confidence: 99%

An attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning.

Pacton¹,

Perruchet²

2008

Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cogni

118

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In 5 experiments, results showed that when participants are faced with materials embedding relations between both adjacent and nonadjacent elements, they learn exclusively the type of relations they had to actively process in order to meet the task demands, irrespective of the spatial contiguity of the paired elements. These results are consonant with current theories positing that attention is a necessary condition for learning. More important, the results provide support for a more radical conception, in which the joint attentional processing of 2 events is also a sufficient condition for learning the relation between them. The well-documented effect of contiguity could be a by-product of the fact that attention generally focuses on contiguous events. This reappraisal considerably extends the scope of approaches based on associative or statistical processes.

show abstract

“…This might at first seem surprising, since one would expect that extensive pre-exposure to the operant chamber would lead to latent inhibition, a process whereby pre-exposure to a conditioned stimulus or an environment inhibits their ability to become associated with an unconditioned stimulus through Pavlovian conditioning (see Lubow 1989). However, in the current study, the majority of pre-exposure to the operant chambers during training and establishment of baseline stability occurred without removal of the animals from the chambers or injections; rather, habituation to the injection schedule of the cumulative dosing regimen occurred in only three operant sessions prior to the onset of morphine treatment and withdrawal testing.…”

Section: Effects Of Varying Context In Which Naloxone Is Experienced mentioning

confidence: 99%

Conditioning processes contribute to severity of naloxone-precipitated withdrawal from acute opioid dependence

2003

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale: Single injections with morphine can induce a state of acute opioid dependence in humans and animals, typically measured as precipitated withdrawal, when an antagonist such as naloxone is administered 4-24 h after morphine. Repeated treatment with morphine results in further increases in naloxone potency, and prior work has shown that this progressive shift in naloxone potency requires repeated naloxone experience under some but not all experimental conditions. Objective: The current study sought to further characterize the experimental conditions that support naloxone experience-dependent and experience-independent potentiation of precipitated suppression of operant responding in morphine pretreated rats, and to assess more directly whether conditioning mechanisms may contribute to the former process. Methods: Rats trained on an FR15 schedule for food received a total of five vehicle or morphine injections (5.6 mg/kg SC) at 4, 8, or 22 h prior to an operant session in which a cumulative dose-effect function for naloxone-induced suppression of responding was determined. Separate groups of animals at each interval between morphine and naloxone received cumulative naloxone dosing after all morphine pretreatments (NAL all days) or after just the first and last morphine pretreatment (NAL first/last). Additional groups of rats at the 4 h MOR-NAL interval received most of their naloxone cumulative dose-effect experience in either the home cage or in the operant context with levers retracted. Results: Vehicle-pretreated (Morphine-naive) rats showed little change in the naloxone dose-effect function even after five cumulative dose-effect determinations. With a single morphine pretreatment, naloxone potency was increased at 4 or 8 h post-morphine, but not at 22 h. With repeated morphine treatment, all MOR-NAL intervals resulted in significant shifts in naloxone potency across treatment days even when naloxone was administered only after the first and last morphine pretreatment. However, much greater shifts in naloxone potency were observed at 4-h and 8-h intervals when naloxone was administered on all treatment days. At the 22 h MOR-NAL interval, there was no further potentiation in naloxone potency with additional naloxone experience provided on the intermediate days. Finally, when the repeated naloxone experience occurred in the home cage at the 4-h interval, naloxone potency was identical to that seen after limited naloxone experience (NAL first/last), and significantly less than naloxone potency in groups receiving repeated naloxone experience in the operant context. Conclusions: The results suggest that conditioned withdrawal mechanisms may play a significant role in the initial development of opioid dependence.

show abstract

Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory.

Cited by 419 publications

References 17 publications

Expression of the CS- and US-Pre-Exposure Effects in the Conditioned Taste Aversion Paradigm and Their Abolition Following Systemic Amphetamine Treatment in C57BL6/J Mice

Expression of the CS- and US-Pre-Exposure Effects in the Conditioned Taste Aversion Paradigm and Their Abolition Following Systemic Amphetamine Treatment in C57BL6/J Mice

An attention-based associative account of adjacent and nonadjacent dependency learning.

Conditioning processes contribute to severity of naloxone-precipitated withdrawal from acute opioid dependence

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About