Spontaneous recovery and ABC renewal from retroactive cue interference

Abstract

Two conditioned suppression experiments with rats were conducted to determine whether the spontaneous recovery and renewal that are commonly observed in retroactive outcome interference (e.g., extinction) also occur in retroactive cue interference. Experiment 1 showed that a long delay between Phase 2 (the interfering phase) and testing produces a recovery from the cue interference (i.e., the delay enhanced responding to the target cue trained in Phase 1), which is analogous to the spontaneous recovery effect observed in extinction and other retroactive outcome interference procedures. Experiment 2 showed that, when target and interfering cues are trained in separate contexts and testing occurs in a different but familiar context, a recovery from the cue interference is also observed (i.e., the context shift enhanced responding to the target), which is analogous to ABC renewal from extinction. The results are discussed in terms of the possibility that similar associative mechanisms underlie cue and outcome interference.

The functions of contexts in associative learning

“…The context dependency of excitatory learning has been demonstrated compellingly in memory interference paradigms with humans (for an early review, see Underwood, 1969) and in other experiments investigating memory retrieval (e.g., Godden & Baddeley, 1975) in addition to the above mentioned state-dependent retrieval (e.g., Bower, 1981; Overton, 1985). For similar effects in animal studies, see for example Amundson and Miller (2008) and Miguez, Cham, et al (2012). Although excitatory learning is often context dependent, extinction learning (a specific memory interference paradigm) seems to be even more so, with its retrieval at test being critically dependent on the presence of spatial and temporal cues from extinction training (Bouton & Bolles, 1979; reviewed in Bouton, 2004; Laborda & Miller, 2012; Urcelay, 2012).…”

“…This role of context takes the form of the context (or its absence in contrast to its presence) modulating at test the retrieval of US representations given presentation of a nominal CS (e.g., Bouton & Swartzentruber, 1986; Miguez, Cham, & Miller, 2012; Molet, Urcelay, Miguez, & Miller, 2010). Evidence for this role is abundant as there are many instances in which the presence of a specific context at test is essential for the expression of CS-US associations acquired within that context (e.g., Urcelay & Miller, 2008).…”

“…Extinction learning is widely regarded as acquisition of a new Cue-NoOutcome association that is highly context dependent, and a similar context dependency is observed when cue alone exposures occur before training (i.e., latent inhibition; Lubow & Moore, 1959) or when the outcome is presented alone either before or after cue-outcome pairings (Randich & LoLordo, 1979; Urushihara, Wheeler & Miller, 2004; for boundary conditions on when outcome-alone presentations following cue-outcome pairings will degrade behavioral control by the cue, see Miller & Matute, 1996). Similarly, in proactive and retroactive associative cue interference, different CSs are paired with the same US across two phases (or a common CS is paired with two different outcomes across two phases), and a decrement in responding based on the target association (either the first learned or second learned association) is observed due to training on the alternative (interfering) association (e.g., Amundson, Escobar, & Miller, 2003; Miguez, Cham, et al, 2012). …”

Stepping back from ‘persistence and relapse’ to see the forest: Associative interference

“…Testing outside of the context of phase 2 treatment or long retention intervals tend to result in the recovery of first-learned associations as has been demonstrated with numerous reports of renewal, spontaneous recovery, and resurgence effects (e.g., Miguez, Cham, & Miller, 2012; Bouton & Schepers, 2014). The relative ease with which retroactive interference can be attenuated following assorted interference treatments indicates that most retroactive interference is a performance deficit (i.e., a retrieval or expression failure).…”

Timing of interfering events in one-trial serial overshadowing of a taste aversion

“…Finally, it may be noted that the serial overshadowing effect studied here bears some similarity to another retroactive interference effect, known as retroactive cue interference (RCI), that has been reported in a number of studies using both human and rat participants (Escobar, Matute, & Miller, 2001;Matute & Pineño, 1998;Miguez, Cham, & Miller, 2012). The procedure used to produce RCI is one in which subjects first learn to associate cue X with some outcome and, in a later session, learn to associate a second cue, Y, with the same outcome.…”