Abstract
Latent inhibition (LI), the retardation of Pavlovian acquisition after nonreinforced preexposure to the conditioned stimulus, is a popular paradigm for studying basic attentional and memory processes from both behavioral and neurobiological perspectives. It is argued that whether LI emerges depends on the behavioral measure used to index conditioning. An experiment with rats demonstrates that stimulus preexposure retards the development of sign-tracking responses directed at the stimulus, but not the development of goal-tracking responses directed at the site of food delivery. These results are consistent with models that explain LI in terms of a deficit in retrieval.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Akins, C. K., Domjan, M., &Gutiérrez, G. (1994). Topography of sexually conditioned behavior in male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica) depends on the CS-US interval.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 199–209.
Antip, G. W. (1977). Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,28, 59–69.
Baruch, I., Hemsley, D. R., &Gray, J. A. (1988). Differential performance of acute and chronic schizophrenics in a latent inhibition task.Journal of Nervous & Mental Disease,176, 598–606.
Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin,114, 80–99.
Brown, B. L., Hemmes, N. S., Cabeza de Vaca, S., &Pagano, C. (1993). Sign and goal tracking during delay and trace autoshaping in pigeons.Animal Learning & Behavior,21, 360–368.
Burns, M., &Domjan, M. (2001). Topography of spatially directed conditioned responding: Effects of context and trial duration.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,27, 269–278.
Channell, S., &Hall, G. (1984). Contextual effects in latent inhibition with an appetitive conditioning procedure.Animal Learning & Behavior,11, 67–74.
Chiba, A. A., Bucci, D. J., Holland, P. C., &Gallagher, M. (1995). Basal forebrain cholinergic lesions disrupt increments but not decrements in conditioned stimulus processing.Journal of Neuroscience,15, 7315–7322.
Davey, G. C. L., Oakley, D., &Cleland, G. G. (1981). Autoshaping in the rat: Effects of omission on the form of the response.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,36, 75–91.
Domjan, M. (2000). General-process learning theory: Challenges from response and stimulus factors.International Journal of Comparative Psychology,13, 101–118.
Escobar, M., Oberling, P., &Miller, R. R. (2002). Associative deficit accounts of disrupted latent inhibition and blocking in schizophrenia.Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews,26, 203–216.
Gray, J. A. (1998). Integrating schizophrenia.Schizophrenia Bulletin,24, 249–266.
Gray, N. S., Hemsley, D. R., &Gray, J. A. (1992). Abolition of latent inhibition in acute, but not chronic, schizophrenics.Neurology, Psychiatry, & Brain Research,1, 83–89.
Holland, P. C., &Gallagher, M. (1993). Amygdala central nucleus lesions disrupt increments, but not decrements, in conditioned stimulus processing.Behavioral Neuroscience,107, 246–253.
Killcross, S., &Balleine, B. (1996). Role of primary motivation in stimulus preexposure effects.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,22, 32–42.
Lubow, R. E. (1989).Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. D. (1988). The comparator hypothesis: A response rule for the expression of associations. In G. H. Bower (Ed.),The psychology of learning and motivation: Advances in research and theory (Vol. 22, pp. 51–92). San Diego: Academic Press.
Papini, M. R., &Brewer, M. (1994). Response competition and the trial-spacing effect in autoshaping with rats.Learning & Motivation,25, 201–215.
Rescorla, R. A. (1980).Pavlovian second-order conditioning: Studies in associative learning. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Rescorla, R. A. (1988). Behavioral studies of Pavlovian conditioning.Annual Review of Neuroscience,11, 329–352.
Schneiderman, N. (1972). Response system divergences in aversive classical conditioning. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.),Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 341–376). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1966). The phylogeny and ontogeny of behavior.Science,153, 1204–1213.
Solomon, P. R., &Staton, D. M. (1982). Differential effects of microinjections ofd-amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens or the caudate putamen on the rat’s ability to ignore an irrelevant stimulus.Biological Psychiatry,17, 743–756.
Stiers, M., &Silberberg, A. (1974). Lever-contact responses in rats: Automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency.Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior,22, 497–506.
Thompson, R. F., &Spencer, W. A. (1966). Habituation: A model phenomenon for the study of neuronal substrates of behavior.Psychological Review,73, 16–43.
Toothaker, L. E. (1992).Multiple comparison procedures (Quantitative applications in the social sciences, No. 89). London: Sage.
Weiner, I., &Feldon, J. (1987). Facilitation of latent inhibition by haloperidol in rats.Psychopharmacology,91, 248–253.
Zener, K. (1937). The significance of behavior accompanying conditioned salivary secretion for theories of the conditioned response.American Journal of Psychology,50, 384–403.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
The authors thank Fernando Guernica, Katie Singleton, and Allison Wise for scoring the videotapes, and H. Wayne Ludvigson and Brian L. Thomas for providing useful comments on earlier drafts of this paper.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Boughner, R.L., Papini, M.R. Appetitive latent inhibition in rats: Now you see it (sign tracking), now you don’t (goal tracking). Animal Learning & Behavior 31, 387–392 (2003). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195999
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03195999