Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
  • Log in
  1. Home
  2. Animal Learning & Behavior
  3. Article
The influence of a distractor during compound preexposure on latent inhibition
Download PDF
Your article has downloaded

Similar articles being viewed by others

Slider with three articles shown per slide. Use the Previous and Next buttons to navigate the slides or the slide controller buttons at the end to navigate through each slide.

Associative structure of conditioned inhibition produced by inhibitory perceptual learning treatment

12 November 2018

Cody W. Polack & Ralph R. Miller

Is deviance distraction immune to the prior sequential learning of stimuli and responses?

03 March 2020

Fabrice B. R. Parmentier & Laura Gallego

Monetary incentives have only limited effects on auditory distraction: evidence for the automaticity of cross-modal attention capture

19 December 2020

Raoul Bell, Laura Mieth, … Jan Philipp Röer

Blocking of Stimulus Control and Conditioned Reinforcement

31 March 2020

Monica Vandbakk, Heidi Skorge Olaff & Per Holth

Target voice probability influences enhancement in auditory selective attention

14 March 2023

Heather R. Daly & Mark A. Pitt

Surprisingly inflexible: Statistically learned suppression of distractors generalizes across contexts

03 December 2021

Jasper de Waard, Louisa Bogaerts, … Jan Theeuwes

Saliency determines the integration of contextual information into stimulus–response episodes

19 January 2022

Ruyi Qiu, Malte Möller, … Susanne Mayr

No sound is more distracting than the one you're trying not to hear: delayed costs of mental control of task-irrelevant neutral and emotional sounds

21 February 2022

Örn Kolbeinsson, Erkin Asutay, … Hugo Hesser

Effects of Auditory LTP-Like Stimulation on Auditory Stimulus Processing

01 November 2021

A. B. Rebreikina, D. F. Kleeva, … O. V. Sysoeva

Download PDF
  • Published: May 2002

The influence of a distractor during compound preexposure on latent inhibition

  • Phil Reed1 &
  • Elias Tsakanikos1 

Animal Learning & Behavior volume 30, pages 121–131 (2002)Cite this article

  • 244 Accesses

  • 5 Citations

  • Metrics details

Abstract

Nonreinforced exposure to a nontarget stimulus that was followed by nonreinforced exposure to a target/nontarget simultaneous compound stimulus resulted in enhanced latent inhibition of the target. Conditioning was slower after this treatment than after nonreinforced exposure to the target stimulus alone (Experiment 1). However, a salient auditory stimulus presented immediately after the compound in the second phase reduced levels of latent inhibition, relative to the enhanced latent inhibition produced when no such extracompound stimulus was presented (Experiments 2 and 3). This effect was not noted if the salient auditory cue was presented 10 sec after the termination of the compound stimulus (Experiment 4). In Experiment 5, there was no disruption of simple latent inhibition produced by a salient stimulus. These results are consistent with enhanced latent inhibition’s being produced by the formation of within-compound associations, which are disrupted by the salient extracompound stimuli.

Download to read the full article text

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

References

  • Hall, G., &Honey, R. [C.] (1988). Perceptual and associative learning. In S. B. Klein & R. R. Mowrer (Eds.),Contemporary learning theories: Pavlovian conditioning and the status of traditional learning theory (pp. 117–147). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hall, G., Kaye, H., &Pearce, J. M. (1985). Attention and conditioned inhibition. In R. R. Miller & N. E. Spear (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Conditioned inhibition (pp. 185–207). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holland, P. C. (1980). Second-order conditioning with and without unconditioned stimulus presentations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,6, 238–250.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Honey, R. C., &Hall, G. (1988). Overshadowing and blocking procedures in latent inhibition.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40B, 163–186.

    Google Scholar 

  • Honey, R. C., &Hall, G. (1992). CS memory after trace conditioning.Learning & Motivation,23, 145–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaye, H., Swietalski, N., &Mackintosh, N. J. (1988). Distracter effects on latent inhibition are a consequence of generalisation decrement.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,40B, 151–161.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killcross, S., &Balleine, B. (1996). Role of primary motivation in stimulus preexposure effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 32–42.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow, R. E. (1989).Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow, R. E., Schnur, P., &Rifkin, B. (1976). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 163–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubow, R. E., Weiner, I., &Schnur, P. (1981). Conditioned attention theory. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 15, pp. 1–49). New York: Academic Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P. (1991). Blocking latent inhibition.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,29, 292–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P. (1995a). Compound stimulus preexposure effects in an appetitive conditioning procedure.Learning & Motivation,26, 1–10.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P. (1995b). Enhanced latent inhibition following compound preexposure.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,48B, 32–45.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P., Anderson, E., &Foster, C. (1999). Modality of stimulus effects in compound preexposure procedures: Associative influences in enhanced latent inhibition.Learning & Motivation,30, 35–52.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Reed, P., Petrochilos, P., Upal, N., &Baum, M. (1997). Extinction of enhanced latent inhibition.Animal Learning & Behavior,25, 283–290.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmajuk, N. A., Lam, Y.-W., &Gray, J.-A. (1996). Latent inhibition: A neural network approach.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 321–349.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Wagner, A. R. (1981). SOP: A model of automatic memory processing in animal behavior. In N. E. Spear & R. R. Miller (Eds.),Information processing in animals: Memory mechanisms (pp. 5–47). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University College London, Gower Street, WC1E 6BT, London, England

    Phil Reed & Elias Tsakanikos

Authors
  1. Phil Reed
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Elias Tsakanikos
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Phil Reed.

Additional information

These data were presented at the Experimental Analysis of Behaviour Group Meeting, London, 1998. Thanks are due Amanda Roberts and Julie DeJongh for help with collection of the data and Lisa A. Osborne for her comments and support.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Reed, P., Tsakanikos, E. The influence of a distractor during compound preexposure on latent inhibition. Animal Learning & Behavior 30, 121–131 (2002). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192914

Download citation

  • Received: 17 July 2001

  • Accepted: 27 February 2002

  • Issue Date: May 2002

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03192914

Share this article

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

Keywords

  • Latent Inhibition
  • Compound Stimulus
  • Nontarget Stimulus
  • Elevation Ratio
  • Latent Inhibition Effect
Download PDF

Working on a manuscript?

Avoid the common mistakes

Advertisement

Over 10 million scientific documents at your fingertips

Switch Edition
  • Academic Edition
  • Corporate Edition
  • Home
  • Impressum
  • Legal information
  • Privacy statement
  • California Privacy Statement
  • How we use cookies
  • Manage cookies/Do not sell my data
  • Accessibility
  • FAQ
  • Contact us
  • Affiliate program

Not logged in - 34.232.62.64

Not affiliated

Springer Nature

© 2023 Springer Nature Switzerland AG. Part of Springer Nature.