It has been found that nonreinforeed preexposure to the to-be-conditioned stimulus results in a decrement in performance during the acquisition phase of a classical defensive leg response conditioning procedure. The present study shows that: (a) this decrement is a function of the frequency of preexposure, (b) the size of the decrement remains constant over 4 days of acquisition training, and (c) the decrement as a function of preexposure is not significant during extinction. In a previous experiment Lubow and Moore (1959) demonstrated a phenomenon which they labeled latent inhibition. This term describes the decrement in conditioning performance 'which results from the nonreinforeed preexposure of the to-be-conditioned stimulus. The purpose of the following study was to extend the earlier findings. In that study, experimental and control observations were made from the same &. That is, S was preexposed for 10 trials to either a flashing light or a moving rotor; following this, S was conditioned on alternate trials to the light and to the rotor. Reinforced acquisition training was started immediately after the preexposure trials, and continued until a predetermined criterion of 10 CRs was reached in that session. In the present study we were interested in the effect of frequency of nonreinforeed preexposure of the to-be-conditioned stimulus on acquisition and extinction performance; and in the duration of latent inhibition, both within an acquisition session and between sessions. Finally, we were interested in demonstrating the latent inhibition phenomenon within the context of a different experimental design in which different Ss were used for different groups.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
R. E. Lubow (1965) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: