Daniel S. Wheeler

Interaction of retention interval with CS-preexposure and extinction treatments: Symmetry with respect to primacy

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.

Generalization decrement in human contingency learning

An association between a cue and an outcome will generalize to a similar novel cue to some extent, but not completely. Learning theorists refer to the discrepancy between responding elicited by the original cue and the novel cue as a generalization decrement. Two experiments used a contingency learning task with human participants to compare the size of a generalization decrement between configurations of cues that were altered by adding or subtracting compositional elements. The results suggest that adding elements to a configuration can produce a generalization decrement, but removing elements produces a more robust generalization decrement. Furthermore, the generalization decrement caused by adding elements was not likely to be caused by competing orienting responses. The results are used to contrast Pearces (1987, 1994) and Wagners (2003) models of stimulus generalization.

Outcome pre- and postexposure effects: retention interval interacts with primacy and recency.

Effects of outcome-alone pretraining and posttraining exposure were investigated in conditioned suppression experiments conducted within a sensory preconditioning preparation with rats. Experiment 1 found that interference by outcome postexposure was stronger than that by outcome preexposure, suggesting a recency effect. Experiment 2 found that after a long retention interval, outcome preexposure produced more interference than outcome postexposure, suggesting a shift from recency to primacy with increasing retention interval. Experiment 3 showed that presentation of a priming stimulus that had been embedded within the earlier phase of treatment also caused a shift from recency to primacy. These results suggest that, at least in a sensory preconditioning paradigm, retrievability of outcome-alone exposure memory is an important determinant of any outcome-alone exposure effect.

Massive preexposure and preexposure in multiple contexts attenuate the context specificity of latent inhibition.

Latent inhibition, which refers to attenuated responding to a conditioned stimulus (CS) after CS-unconditioned stimulus (CS-US) pairings as a result of CS-alone presentations prior to the pairings, is often attenuated if preexposure and conditioning occur in different contexts (i.e., it is context specific). Here we report two conditioned lick suppression experiments, using rat subjects, that examined whether manipulations known to attenuate the context specificity of extinction could also eliminate the context specificity of latent inhibition. Context specificity of latent inhibition was eliminated when the CS was preexposed in multiple contexts (Experiment 1) and when the CS was massively preexposed in the training context alone (Experiment 2). These results and their practical implications are discussed in the framework of contemporary theories of latent inhibition.

An extended comparator hypothesis account of superconditioning.

Three conditioned taste aversion experiments with rats investigated superconditioning. In each experiment, alternate exposures of 2 flavor compounds with a common element (i.e., AB/AS) were administered to establish an inhibitory relationship between the 2 unique elements, B and S, and prior to testing, S was paired with lithium chloride (LiCl). In Experiment 1, pairings of a neutral cue (X) with S in compound with B after the AB/AS exposures resulted in superconditioning between X and S. Extinction of the common element (A) just before the S-LiCl pairing attenuated both the inhibitory relationship between B and S (Experiment 2) and superconditioning between X and S (Experiment 3). These observations suggest that superconditioning consists of enhanced performance rather than enhanced associative acquisition.

Recency-to-primacy shift in cue competition

Three experiments were conducted using a lick-suppression preparation with rats to determine whether temporal and physical context shifts modulate the effectiveness of 2 sequentially trained blocking stimuli. Experiment 1 ascertained that it is possible to obtain blocking by conditioning rats to react to a target cue using 2 different blocking cues, each trained with a single-phase blocking paradigm. Experiment 2 showed that the more recently trained blocking stimulus was more effective (i.e., showed a recency effect) when testing was conducted immediately after training, but a long retention interval attenuated blocking by the most recently trained blocking stimulus and increased blocking by the initially trained blocking stimulus (i.e., a recency-to-primacy shift). This shift from recency to primacy affected in Experiment 2 by varying the retention interval was replicated in Experiment 3 by changing the physical context between training and testing. Taken together, the results indicate that the effectiveness of sequentially trained competing stimuli follows the same recency-to-primacy shift rule that is seen in traditional interference phenomena.

The effect of subadditive pretraining on blocking: Limits on generalization

Recent evidence indicates that prior learning about a set of cues may determine how new cues are processed. If subjects are taught that two reliable predictors of an outcome do not summate when the cues are presented together (i.e., subadditive pretraining), the subjects will tend to show a less profound blocking effect when trained with different cues. Three experiments investigated the conditions necessary for subadditive pretraining to generalize to new cues. Experiment 1 demonstrated that subadditive pretraining is less effective in reducing blocking when it is experienced in a context other than that in which the blocking training is experienced. In Experiment 2, the effectiveness of subadditive pretraining waned with time. Experiment 3 showed that subadditive pretraining is more effective when the temporal characteristics of pretraining cues are similar to those of the cues used in blocking training. These results provide information concerning the conditions under which learning will generalize from one set of cues to another.

Recovery from blocking between outcomes.

Contemporary associative learning research largely focuses on cue competition phenomena that occur when 2 cues are paired with a common outcome. Little research has been conducted to investigate similar phenomena occurring when a single cue is trained with 2 outcomes. Three conditioned lick suppression experiments with rats assessed whether treatments known to alleviate blocking between cues would also attenuate blocking between outcomes. In Experiment 1, conditioned responding recovered from blocking between outcomes when a long retention interval was interposed between training and testing. Experiment 2 obtained recovery from blocking between outcomes when the blocking outcome was extinguished after the blocking treatment. In Experiment 3, a recovery from blocking between outcomes occurred when a reminder stimulus was presented in a novel context prior to testing. Collectively, these studies demonstrate that blocking of outcomes, like blocking of cues, appears to be caused by a deficit in the expression of an acquired association.

Interactions between retroactive-interference and context-mediated treatments that impair pavlovian conditioned responding.

In Pavlovian fear conditioning, context-mediated decrements in conditioned responding (e.g., the US preexposure effect) can counteract competition between cues trained together (e.g., overshadowing). Two experiments were conducted using rats in a conditioned lick suppression preparation to determine whether context-mediated competition also counteracts competition between cues trained separately (retroactive interference, or RI). In Experiment 1, a combination of degraded contingency and RI treatments produced less of a decrement in conditioned responding than did either of those treatments alone. Experiment 2 showed that RI treatment attenuates the normally deleterious effect of trial massing. The results suggest that empirical similarities are shared by interference between cues trained apart and competition between cues trained together.

Primacy effects induced by temporal or physical context shifts are attenuated by a preshift test trial

When subjects are sequentially trained with a cue (A) paired separately with two outcomes (B and C) in different phases (i.e., A–B pairings followed by A–C pairings) testing in the training context after short retention intervals often reveals recency effects (i.e., stronger influence by A–C). In contrast, testing after long retention intervals or testing in a context different from that of training sometimes reveals primacy effects (A–B). Three experiments were conducted using rats in a Pavlovian conditioned bar-press suppression preparation to ascertain whether a nonreinforced test trial in the training context soon after training can attenuate this shift to primacy. Experiment 1 demonstrated that exposure to A shortly after both phases of training, but prior to a long retention interval, can attenuate shifts from recency to primacy otherwise observed with a long retention interval. Experiment 2 showed that exposure to A in the training context can also eliminate the shift from recency to primacy otherwise produced by shifting the physical context between training and test. Experiment 3 discredited a potential account of the results of Experiments 1 and 2. The effects observed in Experiment 1 and 2 are interpreted as early testing in the training context serving to initiate rehearsal of the A–C association due to the temporal proximity of A–C training.