ArticleJournal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition2022
Inhibition in discriminated operant learning: Tests of response-specificity after feature-negative and extinction learning.
Article in Journal of experimental psychology. Animal learning and cognition, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 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
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Response-specificity or response-generality of inhibition in an operant feature-negative discrimination: Influence of the amount of inhibition training and attention to the response.Learning and motivation · 2024Article
- Learning to stop responding.Behavioural processes · 2023Review
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
Abstract
Six experiments with rats examined the nature of inhibition learned in an operant feature-negative (FN) discrimination. The results of prior experiments that examined instrumental extinction rather than FN learning suggest that inhibition can be very specific to the inhibited response. In Experiment 1, we trained lever-press and chain-pull responses in separate but parallel FN discriminations (AR1+, ABR1-, CR2+, and CDR2-) and then tested both inhibitors (B and D) with both responses. Of primary interest was the extent to which the inhibitors suppressed the response they were trained with (same-response inhibition) versus the other response (cross-response inhibition). We found that cross-response inhibition was robust and essentially equal to same-response inhibition. Experiment 2 replicated this result and confirmed stronger inhibition after FN learning than after a differential inhibition procedure (AR1+, BR1-, CR2+, and DR2-). There was also little evidence that cross-response inhibition was due to a demonstrable competing response. Experiment 3 found that cross-response inhibition did not depend on having the two responses reinforced by a common outcome. Experiments 4 and 5 then found that cross-response inhibition depended substantially (though not completely) on the transfer target response having been trained in its own FN discrimination. However, Experiment 6 found that inhibition after instrumental extinction (as opposed to FN learning) was still highly response-specific when the transferred-to response had been trained in an FN discrimination. The overall results suggest that the characteristics of inhibition in instrumental extinction and FN learning differ and that transfer of FN inhibition across responses depends at least partly on previous "inhibitability" of the target response. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).
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.