Blocking as a Retrieval Failure: Reactivation of Associations to a Blocked Stimulus

Abstract

Conditioned lick suppression in rats was used to examine the effectiveness of three different “reminder” treatments in reactivating associations to a blocked stimulus in a Kamin blocking paradigm. Experiment I indicated that with our parameters prior tone-footshock pairings could block manifestation of a light-footshock association that would otherwise be evident following pairings of a light-tone compound stimulus with footshock. In Experiment II, exposure to either the US, the blocked stimulus (light), or the apparatus cues between the compound conditioning trials and testing decreased blocking. Experiments III(a) and III(b) replicated the unblocking effects seen in Experiment II and included control groups that received the identical training and reminder treatments except for the omission of the light from the compound stimulus. These latter animals failed to display behaviour comparable to the blocked and reminded subjects, thereby establishing the associative basis of suppression to the light in the animals reminded following treatment known to produce blocking. Experiment IV also replicated the results of Experiment II and included control groups that received identical light-tone compound trials and reminder treatments without prior conditioning to the tone alone. In these control groups, reminder treatments tended to disrupt rather than increase evidence of conditioning to the light. The results suggest that associations are formed to the added element of a compound despite prior conditioning to the initial element, and that failure on the test trial to retrieve these associations to the blocked CS, rather than a failure to attend to or learn about the added element, is at least in part responsible the Kamin blocking effect.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Deweer

Sara

S. J.

Hars

(1980). Contextual cues and memory retrieval in rats: Alleviation of forgetting by a pretest exposure to background stimuli. Animal Learning and Behavior 8, 265–72.

Gordon

W. C.

Smith

G. J.

Katz

D. S.

(1979). Dual effects of response blocking following avoidance learning. Behavior Research and Therapy 17, 479–87.

Kamin

L. J.

(1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. Punishment and Aversive Behavior. Campbell

B. A.

Church

R. M.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1975a). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review 82, 276–98.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1975b). Blocking of conditioned suppression: Role of the first compound trial. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 1, 335–45.

Mackintosh

N. J.

Turner

(1971). Blocking as a function of novelty of CS and predictability of UCS. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 23, 359–66.

Mackintosh

N. J.

Bygrave

D. J.

Picton

B. M. B.

(1977). Locus of the effect of a surprising reinforcer in the attenuation of blocking. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 29, 327–36.

Mackintosh

N. J.

Dickinson

Cotton

M. M.

(1980). Surprise and blocking: Effects of number of compound trials. Animal Learning and Behavior 8, 387–91.

Miller

R. R.

(1982). Effects of intertrial reinstatement of training stimuli on complex maze learning in rats: Evidence that “acquisition” curves reflect more than acquisition. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes 8, 86–109.

10.

Miller

R. R.

Ott

C. A.

Berk

A. M.

Springer

A. D.

(1974). Appetitive memory restoration after electroconvulsive shock in the rat. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology 87, 717–23.

11.

Miller

R. R.

Springer

A. D.

(1972). Induced recovery of memory in rats following electroconvulsive shock. Physiology and Behavior 8, 645–51.

12.

Randich

LoLordo

V. M.

(1979). Associative and non-associative theories of the UCS pre-exposure phenomenon: implications for Pavlovian conditioning. Psychological Bulletin 86, 523–48.

13.

Randich

Rescorla

R. A.

(1981). The effects of separate presentations of the US on conditioned suppression. Animal Learning and Behavior 9, 56–64.

14.

Rescorla

R. A.

Durlach

P. J.

(1981). Within-event learning in Pavlovian conditioning. Memory Mechanisms in Animal Behavior. Spear

N. E.

Miller

R. R.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

15.

Rescorla

R. A.

Wagner

A. R.

(1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and non-reinforcement. Classical Conditioning II. Black

Prokasy

W. F.

New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.

16.

Riccio

D. C.

Haroutunin

(1979). Some approaches to the alleviation of ontogenetic memory deficits. The Ontogeny of Learning and Memory. Spear

N. E.

Campbell

B. A.

Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.

17.

Sharp

P. E.

James

J. H.

Wagner

A. R.

(1980). Habituation of a “blocked” stimulus during Pavlovian conditioning. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society 15, 139–42.

18.

Spear

N. E.

(1973). Retrieval of memory in animals. Psychological Review 80, 163–94.

19.

Spear

N. E.

(1978). The Processing of Memories: Forgetting and Retention Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum.

20.

Spear

N. E.

Parsons

P. J.

(1976). Analysis of a reactivation treatment: Ontogenetic determinants of alleviated forgetting. Processes of Animal Memory. Medin

D. L.

Roberts

W. A.

David

R. T.

Hillside, N.J.: Erlbaum.

21.

Sutherland

N. S.

Mackintosh

N. J.

(1971). Mechanisms of animal discrimination New York: Academic Press.