Show simple item record

Authordc.contributor.authorMíguez Cavieres, Gonzalo 
Authordc.contributor.authorMcConnell, Bridget 
Authordc.contributor.authorPolack, Cody W. 
Authordc.contributor.authorMiller, Ralph R. 
Admission datedc.date.accessioned2019-05-31T15:22:28Z
Available datedc.date.available2019-05-31T15:22:28Z
Publication datedc.date.issued2018
Cita de ítemdc.identifier.citationLearning and Behavior, Volumen 46, Issue 3, 2018, Pages 265-280
Identifierdc.identifier.issn15434508
Identifierdc.identifier.issn15434494
Identifierdc.identifier.other10.3758/s13420-017-0306-x
Identifierdc.identifier.urihttps://repositorio.uchile.cl/handle/2250/169578
Abstractdc.description.abstractThis report is part of a larger project examining associative interference as a function of the nature of the interfering and target associations. Lick suppression experiments with rats assessed the effects of context shifts on proactive outcome interference by latent inhibition (LI) and Pavlovian conditioned inhibition (CI) treatments on subsequently trained Pavlovian conditioned excitation treatment. LI and CI were trained in Context A during Phase 1, and then excitation treatment was administered in Context B during Phase 2, followed by tests for conditioned excitation in Contexts A, B, or C. Experiment 1 preliminarily established our LI and CI treatments and resulted in equally retarded acquisition of behavioral control when the target cue was subsequently trained as a conditioned excitor and tested in Context A. However, only CI treatment caused the target to pass a summation test for inhibition. Centrally, Experiment 2 consisted of LI and CI treatments in Context A followed by excitatory training in Context B. Testing found low excitatory control by both LI and CI cues in Context A relative to strong excitatory control in Context B, but CI treatment transferred to Context C more strongly than LI treatment. Experiment 3 determined that LI treatment failed to transfer to Context C even when the number of LI trials was greatly increased. Thus, first-learned LI appears to be relatively context specific, whereas first-learned CI generalizes to a neutral context. These observations add to existing evidence that LI and CI treatments result in different types of learning that diverge sharply in transfer to a novel test context.
Lenguagedc.language.isoen
Publisherdc.publisherSpringer
Type of licensedc.rightsAttribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Link to Licensedc.rights.urihttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/cl/
Sourcedc.sourceLearning and Behavior
Keywordsdc.subjectConditioned inhibition
Keywordsdc.subjectContext specificity
Keywordsdc.subjectCS-preexposure effect
Keywordsdc.subjectLatent inhibition
Keywordsdc.subjectOutcome interference
Keywordsdc.subjectProactive interference
Títulodc.titleProactive interference by cues presented without outcomes: Differences in context specificity of latent inhibition and conditioned inhibition
Document typedc.typeArtículo de revista
Catalogueruchile.catalogadorlaj
Indexationuchile.indexArtículo de publicación SCOPUS
uchile.cosechauchile.cosechaSI


Files in this item

Icon

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile
Except where otherwise noted, this item's license is described as Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 3.0 Chile