Trial reportLearning & behavior2012
Deactivation and reactivation of the inhibitory power of a conditioned inhibitor: testing the predictions of an attentional-associative model.
Trial report in Learning & behavior, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Translation of associative learning models into extinction reminders delivered via mobile phones during cue exposure interventions for substance use.Psychology of addictive behaviors : journal of the Society of Psychologists in Addictive Behaviors · 2014Review
- Solving Pavlov's puzzle: attentional, associative, and flexible configural mechanisms in classical conditioning.Learning & behavior · 2012Article
- The extinction context enables extinction performance after a change in context.Behavioural processes · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
An attentional-associative model (Schmajuk, Lam, & Gray Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 22, 321-349, 1996) assumes that nonreinforced presentations of an inhibitory conditioned stimulus (CS) do not decrease its inhibitory associations. However, the model predicts that extended presentations will decrease attention to the inhibitor, thereby decreasing both (1) the expression of its inhibitory power in a summation test and (2) the rate of acquisition in a retardation test. The model also predicts that subsequent presentations of the inhibitory CS with a novel CS will increase both (1) and (2). Using a predictive learning design in humans, Experiment 1 examined the predictions involving the summation tests, whereas Experiments 2 and 3 examined the predictions involving the retardation tests. Experimental results were in agreement with the predictions of the model.
Indexed as
Identifiers
21915641What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.