Miguez Gonzalo, McConnell Bridget, Polack Cody W, Miller Ralph R
Department of Psychology, State University of New York at Binghamton, Binghamton, NY, 13902-6000, USA.
University of Chile, Santiago, Chile.
Learn Behav. 2018 Sep;46(3):265-280. doi: 10.3758/s13420-017-0306-x.
This 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.
本报告是一个更大项目的一部分,该项目研究联想干扰作为干扰性联想和目标联想性质的函数。对大鼠进行的舔舐抑制实验评估了情境转换对前瞻性结果干扰的影响,通过在后续训练的巴甫洛夫条件性兴奋实验中采用潜伏抑制(LI)和巴甫洛夫条件性抑制(CI)处理。在第1阶段,LI和CI在情境A中进行训练,然后在第2阶段,兴奋实验在情境B中进行,随后在情境A、B或C中进行条件性兴奋测试。实验1初步确立了我们的LI和CI处理方法,当目标线索随后作为条件性兴奋物进行训练并在情境A中进行测试时,结果显示行为控制的习得同样受到延迟。然而,只有CI处理使目标通过了抑制的总和测试。在核心方面,实验2包括在情境A中进行LI和CI处理,随后在情境B中进行兴奋性训练。测试发现,相对于情境B中的强兴奋性控制,情境A中LI和CI线索的兴奋性控制较低,但CI处理比LI处理更强烈地转移到情境C。实验3确定,即使LI实验的次数大幅增加,LI处理也未能转移到情境C。因此,首先习得的LI似乎相对具有情境特异性,而首先习得的CI则能推广到中性情境。这些观察结果进一步证明了现有证据,即LI和CI处理导致不同类型的学习,在转移到新的测试情境时会出现明显分歧。