7
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Human latent inhibition: Problems with the stimulus exposure effect

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Latent inhibition (LI) is a startlingly simple effect in which preexposure of a stimulus without consequence retards subsequent responding to a stimulus–consequence relation. The effect was first demonstrated with Pavlovian conditioning in animals and was later suggested to be a marker of human psychopathology such as schizophrenia. Individual differences in LI has supported the continued use of animal models to understand human mental health. In this review, we ask whether there is sufficient evidence to support the continued application of LI from animal models to human psychopathology because of the weak evidence for LI in humans. There is considerable variability in the methods used to assess LI, sustaining different theoretical accounts of the effects observed, which differ from the accepted accounts of LI as demonstrated in animals. The review shows that although there have been many experiments testing human LI, none provide the necessary experimental controls to support the conclusion that retarded responding is caused simply by preexposure to a stimulus, as has been demonstrated with animal models. Establishing this conflict, we set out a framework for future research.

          Related collections

          Most cited references110

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Context, time, and memory retrieval in the interference paradigms of Pavlovian learning.

          In this article I review research and theory on the "interference paradigms" in Pavlovian learning. In these situations (e.g., extinction, counterconditioning, and latent inhibition), a conditioned stimulus (CS) is associated with different unconditioned stimuli (USs) or outcomes in different phases of the experiment; retroactive interference, proactive interference, or both are often observed. In all of the paradigms, contextual stimuli influence performance, and when information is available, so does the passage of time. Memories of both phases are retained, and performance may depend on which is retrieved. Despite the similarity of the paradigms, conditioning theories tend to explain them with separate mechanisms. They also do not provide an adequate account of the context's role, fail to predict the effects of time, and overemphasize the role of learning or storage deficits. By accepting 4 propositions about animal memory (i.e., contextual stimuli guide retrieval, time is a context, different memories are differentially dependent on context, and interference occurs at performance output), a memory retrieval framework can provide an integrated account of context, time, and performance in the various paradigms.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The N2 in go/no-go tasks reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition.

            The functional significance of the N2 in go/no-go tasks was investigated by comparing electrophysiological data obtained from two tasks: a go/no-go task involving both response inhibition as well as response conflict monitoring, and a go/GO task associated with conflict monitoring only. No response was required to no-go stimuli, and a response with maximal force to GO stimuli. The relative frequency of the go stimuli (80% vs. 50%) was varied. The N2 peaked on both no-go and GO trials, with larger amplitudes for both signals when presented in a context of frequent (80%) go signals. These results support the idea that the N2 reflects conflict monitoring not response inhibition.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Contextual sensitivity in scientific reproducibility.

              In recent years, scientists have paid increasing attention to reproducibility. For example, the Reproducibility Project, a large-scale replication attempt of 100 studies published in top psychology journals found that only 39% could be unambiguously reproduced. There is a growing consensus among scientists that the lack of reproducibility in psychology and other fields stems from various methodological factors, including low statistical power, researcher's degrees of freedom, and an emphasis on publishing surprising positive results. However, there is a contentious debate about the extent to which failures to reproduce certain results might also reflect contextual differences (often termed "hidden moderators") between the original research and the replication attempt. Although psychologists have found extensive evidence that contextual factors alter behavior, some have argued that context is unlikely to influence the results of direct replications precisely because these studies use the same methods as those used in the original research. To help resolve this debate, we recoded the 100 original studies from the Reproducibility Project on the extent to which the research topic of each study was contextually sensitive. Results suggested that the contextual sensitivity of the research topic was associated with replication success, even after statistically adjusting for several methodological characteristics (e.g., statistical power, effect size). The association between contextual sensitivity and replication success did not differ across psychological subdisciplines. These results suggest that researchers, replicators, and consumers should be mindful of contextual factors that might influence a psychological process. We offer several guidelines for dealing with contextual sensitivity in reproducibility.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Nicola.byrom@kcl.ac.uk
                Rachel.Msetfi@ul.ie
                Robin.murphy@psy.ox.ac.uk
                Journal
                Psychon Bull Rev
                Psychon Bull Rev
                Psychonomic Bulletin & Review
                Springer US (New York )
                1069-9384
                1531-5320
                19 March 2018
                19 March 2018
                2018
                : 25
                : 6
                : 2102-2118
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2322 6764, GRID grid.13097.3c, Department of Psychology, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neurosciences, Guy’s Campus, , Kings College London, ; London, UK
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 9692, GRID grid.10049.3c, Centre for Social Issues Research, Department of Psychology, , University of Limerick, ; Limerick, Ireland
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 1936 8948, GRID grid.4991.5, Department of Experimental Psychology, , University of Oxford, ; Radcliffe Observatory Quarter, Oxford, England
                Article
                1455
                10.3758/s13423-018-1455-4
                6267522
                29557066
                4144528e-50d0-47a1-ab63-139001b359a3
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

                History
                Funding
                Funded by: King's College London
                Categories
                Theoretical Review
                Custom metadata
                © Psychonomic Society, Inc. 2018

                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                latent inhibition,associative learning,masking tasks,priming
                Clinical Psychology & Psychiatry
                latent inhibition, associative learning, masking tasks, priming

                Comments

                Comment on this article