Abstract
Latent inhibition was assessed in the acquisition of autoshaping in the pigeon. One group of pigeons was preexposed to an 8-sec key-light stimulus presented 50 times per session for a minimum of 10 sessions. A different group was preexposed to the experimental chamber without any scheduled events. Over 4 days of testing, the pigeons preexposed to the to-be- conditional stimulus required a greater number of trials to the first keypeck, pecked after fewer trials, and pecked at a slower rate than the group not preexposed to the to-be-conditional stimulus. All these effects were statistically significant. Thus, the phenomenon of latent inhibition was extended to the pigeon and the autoshaping task.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Brown, P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. Autoshaping of the pigeons’ keypeck. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 1–8.
Catania, A. C., & Reynolds, G. S. A quantitative analysis of the responding maintained by interval schedules of rein- forcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1968, 11, 327–383.
Gibbon, J., Baldock, M. D., Locurto, C., Gold, L., & Terrace, H. S. Trial and intertrial durations in auto- shaping. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1977, 3, 264–284.
Lantz, A. E. Effect of number of trials, inter-stimulus interval, and disinhibition during CS habituation on subsequent con- ditioning in CER paradigm. Animal Learning & Behavior, 1973, 1, 273–277.
Lubow, R. E. Latent inhibition. Psychological Bulletin, 1973, 79, 398–407.
Lubow, R. E., Alek, M., & Arzy, J. Behavioral decrement following stimulus preexposure: Effects of number of pre- exposures, presence of a second stimulus, and interstimulus interval in children and adults. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975, 1, 178–188.
Lubow, R. E., & Moore, A. U. Latent inhibition: The effect of non-reinforced preexposure to the conditional stimulus. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 1959, 52, 415–419.
Lubow, R. E., Schnur, P., & Rifkin, B. Latent inhibition and conditioned attention theory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976, 2, 163–174.
Mackintosh, N. J. Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement. In R. A. Hinde & J. Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), Constraints on learning: Limitations and predispositions. New York: Academic Press, 1973.
Sokolov, Y. N. Perception and the conditioned reflex. New York: Pergamon Press, 1963.
Terrace, H. S., Gibbon, J., Farrell, L., & Baldock, M. D. Temporal factors influencing the acquisition and maintenance of an autoshaped keypeck. Animal Learning & Behavior, 1975, 3, 53–62.
Tomie, A. Interference with autoshaping by prior context conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1976, 2, 323–334.
Wasserman, E. A., & Molina, E. J. Explicitly unpaired key- light and food presentations: Interference with subsequent autoshaped keypecking in pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1975, 1, 30–38.
Woodruff, G., & Williams, D. R. The associative relations underlying autoshaping in the pigeon. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 1976, 11, 1–8.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Additional information
We would like to thank Jay Strong for his assistance in running animals.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tranberg, D.K., Rilling, M. Latent inhibition in the autoshaping paradigm. Bull. Psychon. Soc. 11, 273–276 (1978). https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336828
Received:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03336828