Learning that one cue (CS) predicts a second, salient cue (US) can often be slowed by prior exposure to one or both stimuli. In animals, CS-US learning is more strongly retarded following uncorrelated exposure to both CS and US than following exposure to the US alone. In this paper we present several studies showing a similar effect in humans, using a computer-based task. Experiments 1 and 2 used a between-groups design and demonstrated a strong CS/US exposure effect, whether or not the US was signalled by a neutral cue during exposure. Experiment 3 demonstrated similar effects using a within-subjects design. Overall, these results are consistent with several theoretical interpretations and suggest that uncorrelated CS/US exposure leads to a robust retardation of subsequent CS-US learning in humans.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AllenM.CheliusL.GluckM. (1998). Selective entorhinal cortical lesions disrupt the learned irrelevance pre-exposure effect in the classically conditioned rabbit eyeblink response paradigm.Society for Neuroscience Abstracts24, 442.
2.
BakerA.MercierP.GabelJ.BakerP. (1981). Contextual conditioning and the US preexposure effect in conditioned fear.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes7, 2109–128.
3.
BakerA.MackintoshN. (1979). Preexposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance?.Learning and Motivation10, 278–294.
4.
BaruchI.HemsleyD.GrayJ. (1988). Differential performance of acute and chronic schizophrenics in a latent inhibition task.Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease176, 10598–606.
5.
BennettC.MaldonadoA.MackintoshN. (1995). Learned irrelevance is not the sum of exposure to CS and US.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology48B, 117–128.
6.
BonardiC.HallG. (1996). Learned irrelevance: No more than the sum of CS and US preexposure effects?.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes22, 2183–191.
7.
DessN.OvermierJ. B. (1989). General learned irrelevance: Proactive effects on Pavlovian conditioning in dogs.Learning and Motivation20, 1–14.
8.
GibsonE. J.WalkR. D. (1956). The effect of prolonged exposure to visually presented patterns on learning to discriminate them.Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology49, 239–242.
9.
GintonA.UrcaG.LubowR. (1975). The effects of preexposure to nonattended stimuli on subsequent learning: Latent inhibition in adults.Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society5, 15–8.
10.
GluckM.MyersC. (1993). Hippocampal mediation of stimulus representation: A computational theory.Hippocampus3, 491–516.
11.
GrahamS.McLarenI. (1998). Retardation in human discrimination learning as a consequence of pre-exposuie: Latent inhibition or negative priming?.Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology51B, 2155–172.
12.
HallG. (1980). Exposure learning in animais.Psychological Bulletin88, 2535–550.
13.
HinsonR (1982). Effects of UCS preexposure on excitatory and inhibitory rabbit eyelid conditioning: An associative effect of conditioned contextual stimuli.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes8, 149–61.
LubowR. (1997). Latent inhibition as a measure of learned inattention: Some problems and solutions.Behavioural Brain Research88, 75–83.
16.
LubowR.CaspyTSchnurP. (1982). Latent inhibition and learned helplessness in children: Similarities and differences.Journal of Experimental Child Psychology34, 231–256.
17.
LubowR.GewirtzJ. (1995). Latent inhibition in humans: Data, theory and implications for schizophrenia.Psychological Bulletin117, 187–103.
18.
LubowR.Ingberg-SachsY.Zalstein-OrdaN.GewirtzJ. (1992). Latent inhibition in low and high “psychotic-prone” normal subjects.Personality and Individual Differences13, 5563–572.
19.
MackintoshN. (1973). Stimulus selection: Learning to ignore stimuli that predict no change in reinforcement.Constraints on learning: Limitations and predispositions.HindeR.Stevenson-HindeJ.New York: Academic Press75–96.
20.
MatzelL.SchachtmanT.MillerR. (1988). Learned irrelevance exceeds the sum of CS-preexposure and US-preexposure deficits.Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes14, 3311–319.
21.
MyersC.ErmitaB.HasselmoM.GluckM. (1998). Further implications of a computational model of septohippocampal cholinergic modulation in eyeblink conditioning.Psychobiology26, 11–20.
22.
MyersC.GluckM. (1994). Context, conditioning and hippocampal re-representation.Behavioral Neuroscience108, 5835–847.
23.
MyersC.McGlinchey-BerrothR.WarrenS.MontiL.BrawnC.GluckM. (2000). Latent learning in medial temporal amnesia: Evidence for disrupted representational but preserved attentional processes.Neuropsychology14, 13–15.
24.
OvermierJ.WielkiewiczR. (1983). On unpredictability as a causal factor in “Learned Helplessness”.Learning and Motivation14, 324–337.
25.
RandichA.LoLordoV. (1979). Preconditioning exposure to the unconditioned stimulus affects the acquisition of a conditioned emotional response.Learning and Motivation10, 245–277.
26.
RescorlaR. (1967). Pavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.Psychological Review74, 171–80.
27.
SiddleD.RemingtonB. (1987). Latent inhibition and human pavlovian conditioning: Research and relevance.Cognitive processes and Pavlovian conditioning in humans.DaveyG.New York: John Wiley & Sons Ltd115–146.
28.
Zalstein-OrdaN.LubowR. (1994). Context control of negative transfer induced by preexposure to irrelevant stimuli: Latent inhibition in humans.Learning and Motivation26, 11–28.
