Abstract
Imposition of a retention interval between cue-outcome pairings and testing can alleviate the retardation of conditioned responding induced by pretraining exposure to the cue (i.e., the CS-preexposure effect). However, recent studies have reported an enhanced effect of CS-preexposure treatment with longer retention intervals (De la Casa & Lubow, 2000, 2002; Lubow & De la Casa, 2002). In a series of conditioned barpress suppression studies with rats, we examined the effects of imposing a retention interval just prior to testing following either CS-preexposure (cue alone before cue-outcome pairings) or extinction (cue alone after cue-outcome pairings) treatments. Experiment 1 replicated in a different preparation recent reports of CS-preexposure treatment effects increasing with longer retention intervals. Experiment 2 showed that spontaneous recovery of stimulus control of behavior after extinction can be obtained with the same parameters as those used to observe the augmented effect of CS-preexposure treatment. In Experiment 3, both the augmented effect of CS-preexposure treatment and spontaneous recovery from extinction were found when we used, in place of a retention interval, an associative priming manipulation.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aguado, L., Symonds, M., &Hall, G. (1994). Interval between preexposure and test determines the magnitude of latent inhibition: Implications for an interference account.Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 188–194.
Bakner, L., Strohen, K., Nordeen, M., &Riccio, D. C. (1991). Postconditioning recovery from the latent inhibition effect in conditioned taste aversion.Physiology & Behavior,50, 1269–1272.
Bouton, M. E. (1993). Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.Psychological Bulletin,114, 80–99.
Bouton, M. E., &Nelson, J. B. (1994). Contextual specificity of target versus feature inhibition in feature negative discrimination.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,20, 51–65.
Bouton, M. E., &Peck, C. A. (1992). Spontaneous recovery in cross-motivational transfer (counterconditioning).Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 313–321.
Brooks, D. C. (2000). Recent and remote extinction cues reduce spontaneous recovery.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology,53B, 25–58.
Brooks, D. C., Palmatier, M. I., Garcia, E. O., &Johnson, J. L. (1999). An extinction cue reduces spontaneous recovery of a conditioned taste aversion.Animal Learning & Behavior,27, 77–88.
De la Casa, L. G., &Lubow, R. E. (2000). Superlatent inhibition with delayed conditioned taste aversion testing.Animal Learning & Behavior,28, 389–399.
De la Casa, L. G., &Lubow, R. E. (2002). An empirical analysis of the superlatent inhibition effect.Animal Learning & Behavior,30, 112–120.
Dickinson, A., &Burke, J. (1996). Within-compound associations mediate the retrospective revaluation of causality judgements.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology,49B, 60–80.
Escobar, M., Arcediano, F., &Miller, R. R. (2002). Latent inhibition and contextual associations.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,28, 123–136.
Garcia, J. (1989). Food for Tolman: Cognition and cathexis in concert. In T. Archer & L. Nilsson (Eds.),Aversion, avoidance, and anxiety (pp. 45–84). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Grahame, N. J., Barnet, R. C., Gunther, L. M., &Miller, R. R. (1994). Latent inhibition as a performance deficit resulting from CS-context associations.Animal Learning & Behavior,22, 395–408.
Killcross, A. S., Kiernan, M. J., Dwyer, D., &Westbrook, R. F. (1998). Effects of retention interval on latent inhibition and perceptual learning.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology,51B, 59–74.
Konorski, J., &Szwejkowska, G. (1952). Chronic extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes: IV. The dependence of the course of extinction and restoration of conditioned reflexes on the “history” of the conditioned stimulus. (The principle of the primacy of first training).Acta Biologiae Experimentalis,16, 95–113.
Kraemer, P. J., &Ossenkopp, K.-P. (1986). The effects of flavor preexposure and taste interval on conditioned taste aversion in rats.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society,24, 219–222.
Kraemer, P. J., Randall, C. K., &Carbary, T. J. (1991). Release from latent inhibition with delayed testing.Animal Learning & Behavior,19, 139–145.
Kraemer, P. J., &Roberts, W. A. (1984). The influence of flavor preexposure and test interval on conditioned taste aversions in the rat.Learning & Motivation,15, 259–278.
Lubow, R. E. (1989).Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lubow, R. E., &De la Casa, L. G. (2002). Superlatent inhibition and spontaneous recovery: Differential effects of pre- and postconditioning CS-alone presentations after long delays in different contexts.Animal Learning & Behavior,30, 376–386.
Lubow, R. E., Schnur, P., &Rifkin, B. (1976). Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,2, 163–174.
Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement.Psychological Review,82, 276–298.
McLaren, I. P. L., Bennett, C., Plaisted, K., Aitken, M., &Mackintosh, N. J. (1994). Latent inhibition, context specificity, and context familiarity.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative & Physiological Psychology,47B, 387–400.
Miller, R. R., Kasprow, W. J., &Schachtman, T. R. (1986). Retrieval variability: Sources and consequences.American Journal of Psychology,99, 145–218.
Miller, R. R., &Matzel, L. (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.
Nelson, J. B. (2002). Context specificity of excitation and inhibition in ambiguous stimuli.Learning & Motivation,33, 284–310.
Pavlov, I. P. (1927).Conditioned reflexes. New York: Dover.
Pearce, J. M., &Hall, G. (1980). A model of Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli.Psychological Review,87, 532–552.
Robbins, S. J. (1990). Mechanisms underlying spontaneous recovery in autoshaping.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,16, 235–249.
Spear, N. E. (1978).The processing of memories: Forgetting and retention. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Stout, S. C.,Amundson, J. C., &Miller, R. R. (2004).Trial order and retention interval in human contingency judgments. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Swartzentruber, D., &Bouton, M. E. (1992). Context sensitivity of conditioned suppression following preexposure to the conditioned stimulus.Animal Learning & Behavior,20, 97–103.
Westbrook, R. F., Jones, M. L., Bailey, G. K., &Harris, J. A. (2000). Contextual control over conditioned responding in a latent inhibition paradigm.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes,26, 157–173.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Support for this research was provided by NIMH Grants 33881 and 644202. We thank Jim Esposito for his technical assistance, and Jeffrey Amundson, Oskar Pineño, Gonzalo Urcelay, and Kouji Urushihara for comments on an earlier version of the manuscript.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Wheeler, D.S., Stout, S.C. & Miller, R.R. Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatments: Symmetry with respect to primacy. Animal Learning & Behavior 32, 335–347 (2004). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196032
Received:
Accepted:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03196032