Latent inhibition: No effect of intertrial interval of the preexposure trials

Latent inhibition and contextual associations.

“…A potential concern with the results of Experiment 1 is that they are in apparent contradiction with prior reports that amount of latent inhibition is a direct function of the intertrial interval (e.g., Lantz, 1973; Schnur & Lubow, 1976) or independent of interval duration (e.g., DeVietti & Barrett, 1986). However, our observation of attenuated latent inhibition with long intertrial intervals is seen to be consistent with these prior reports when the specific intervals used by these studies are considered.…”

“…Similarly, Schnur and Lubow (1976) observed more latent inhibition with a 70-s than with a 10-s intertrial interval. In contrast, DeVietti and Barrett (1986) observed that the preexposure intertrial interval (10, 30, 60, 120, 180, and 300 s) had no effect on amount of latent inhibition. The intertrial interval for our short condition (72 s), which yielded latent inhibition, is similar to the interval that yielded the most latent inhibition in both the Schnur and Lubow and the Lantz studies.…”

“…More important, the session duration manipulation (short vs. long) was effectively a manipulation of the interval between stimulus presentations (intertrial interval). Prior studies that manipulated the intertrial interval during CS preexposure have obtained either increased latent inhibition with longer intertrial intervals (e.g., Lantz, 1973; Schnur & Lubow, 1976) or no effect of interval duration on latent inhibition (e.g., Crowell & Anderson, 1972; 1 DeVietti & Barrett, 1986). In contrast, on the basis of our expectation that a CS-context association underlies latent inhibition, we anticipated less latent inhibition in the long intertrial interval condition than in the short interval condition.…”

Latent inhibition: A neural network approach.

“…Lantz (1973, Experiment 2) and Schnur and Lubow (1976, Experiment 1) varied the ITI during CS preexposure and showed that LI is a positive function of the ITI. In contrast to these data, DeVietti and Barrett (1986) and Crowell and Anderson (1972) established that the ITI of the preexposure trials had no effect on the magnitude of LI.…”

“…According to the SLG model, CX–CX associations increase with increasing ITIs, thereby decreasing Novelty and z i and facilitating LI. In addition, the model suggests that because LI increases with increasing CS durations, the beneficial effects of increasing ITI durations may become apparent only when a relatively short CS is used (5 to 10 s as in Lantz's (1973) and Schnur and Lubow's (1976) experiments), but not when a relatively long CS is used (15 to 30 s as in DeVietti and Barrett's (1986) and Crowell and Anderson's (1972) experiments.…”