ArticleLearning & behavior2018
Stimulus preexposure speeds or slows subsequent acquisition of associative learning depending on learning test procedures and response measure.
Article in Learning & behavior, 2018. 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, 7 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Passive exposure to task-relevant stimuli enhances categorization learning.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2023Article
- Facilitation and retardation of flavor preference conditioning following prior exposure to the flavor conditioned stimulus.Learning & behavior · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Prior exposure to a conditioned stimulus (CS) typically results in latent inhibition-slower acquisition of associative learning about that stimulus in subsequent training. Here, we found that CS preexposure had different effects on the appetitive conditioning of rats with a sucrose unconditioned stimulus (US) depending on training test procedures, the similarity of preexposure and training procedures, and the choice of response measure. Preexposure to a visual or an auditory stimulus produced facilitation of acquisition of food-cup-directed responding when both of those cues were (separately) paired with sucrose delivery in the training test (Experiments 1 and 3). By contrast, the same preexposure procedure resulted in latent inhibition of food-cup learning if the second stimulus in the test phase was of the same modality as the preexposed stimulus (Experiment 2). In Experiment 3, latent inhibition was enhanced if both phases included a single CS or both phases included both auditory and visual CSs, compared to treatments in which only one CS was presented in one phase but two CSs were presented in the other phase. In Experiment 4, preexposure of an auditory cue slowed subsequent learning about it if the context was salient but enhanced learning if the context was of weaker salience. Finally, a measure of general activity revealed latent inhibition after preexposure in all conditions in all 4 experiments. We discuss the results within several classes of latent inhibition theories, none of which provides a comprehensive account.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.