Latent Inhibition and Compound Conditioning

A Reply to Holmes and Harris (2009)

Nestor Schmajuk, Munir Gunes Kutlu

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

3 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray (SLG, 1996) presented a neural network model of classical conditioning that addresses the multiple properties of latent inhibition (LI). According to the model, LI is the result of the decreased attention to the target stimulus during preexposure and testing. Recently, Holmes and Harris (2009) suggested that, although the model was able to describe their experimental results showing that LI to a preexposed stimulus disappears with extended compound conditioning, it could not describe the fact that LI is not affected by a delay following compound conditioning. However, computer simulations demonstrate that the SLG model describes and explains both results. Because the model also explains both the deleterious and the facilitating effects on LI of a delay following simple conditioning, the SLG model seems unique in explaining the complete range of reported effects of temporal delays on LI as well as most of the properties of LI.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)254-260
Number of pages7
JournalJournal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes
Volume37
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 1 2011

Fingerprint

conditioned behavior
conditioning
Neural Networks (Computer)
Classical Conditioning
computer simulation
neural networks
Conditioning (Psychology)
Inhibition (Psychology)
Computer Simulation
testing

All Science Journal Classification (ASJC) codes

  • Ecology, Evolution, Behavior and Systematics
  • Experimental and Cognitive Psychology

Cite this

@article{6d013ef0e46448beb2fe90ecee8c4193,
title = "Latent Inhibition and Compound Conditioning: A Reply to Holmes and Harris (2009)",
abstract = "Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray (SLG, 1996) presented a neural network model of classical conditioning that addresses the multiple properties of latent inhibition (LI). According to the model, LI is the result of the decreased attention to the target stimulus during preexposure and testing. Recently, Holmes and Harris (2009) suggested that, although the model was able to describe their experimental results showing that LI to a preexposed stimulus disappears with extended compound conditioning, it could not describe the fact that LI is not affected by a delay following compound conditioning. However, computer simulations demonstrate that the SLG model describes and explains both results. Because the model also explains both the deleterious and the facilitating effects on LI of a delay following simple conditioning, the SLG model seems unique in explaining the complete range of reported effects of temporal delays on LI as well as most of the properties of LI.",
author = "Nestor Schmajuk and Kutlu, {Munir Gunes}",
year = "2011",
month = "4",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/a0022911",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "37",
pages = "254--260",
journal = "Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes",
issn = "0097-7403",
publisher = "American Psychological Association Inc.",
number = "2",

}

Latent Inhibition and Compound Conditioning : A Reply to Holmes and Harris (2009). / Schmajuk, Nestor; Kutlu, Munir Gunes.

In: Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, Vol. 37, No. 2, 01.04.2011, p. 254-260.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

TY - JOUR

T1 - Latent Inhibition and Compound Conditioning

T2 - A Reply to Holmes and Harris (2009)

AU - Schmajuk, Nestor

AU - Kutlu, Munir Gunes

PY - 2011/4/1

Y1 - 2011/4/1

N2 - Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray (SLG, 1996) presented a neural network model of classical conditioning that addresses the multiple properties of latent inhibition (LI). According to the model, LI is the result of the decreased attention to the target stimulus during preexposure and testing. Recently, Holmes and Harris (2009) suggested that, although the model was able to describe their experimental results showing that LI to a preexposed stimulus disappears with extended compound conditioning, it could not describe the fact that LI is not affected by a delay following compound conditioning. However, computer simulations demonstrate that the SLG model describes and explains both results. Because the model also explains both the deleterious and the facilitating effects on LI of a delay following simple conditioning, the SLG model seems unique in explaining the complete range of reported effects of temporal delays on LI as well as most of the properties of LI.

AB - Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray (SLG, 1996) presented a neural network model of classical conditioning that addresses the multiple properties of latent inhibition (LI). According to the model, LI is the result of the decreased attention to the target stimulus during preexposure and testing. Recently, Holmes and Harris (2009) suggested that, although the model was able to describe their experimental results showing that LI to a preexposed stimulus disappears with extended compound conditioning, it could not describe the fact that LI is not affected by a delay following compound conditioning. However, computer simulations demonstrate that the SLG model describes and explains both results. Because the model also explains both the deleterious and the facilitating effects on LI of a delay following simple conditioning, the SLG model seems unique in explaining the complete range of reported effects of temporal delays on LI as well as most of the properties of LI.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=79955600309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=79955600309&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/a0022911

DO - 10.1037/a0022911

M3 - Article

VL - 37

SP - 254

EP - 260

JO - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

JF - Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes

SN - 0097-7403

IS - 2

ER -