Latent Inhibition & Perceptual Learning

Question 1

REPRESENTATION DEVELOPMENT

Answer 1

• ^ complex exposure learning; result in change in the way organism represents world
• both latent inhibition/perceptual learning have important influence on how/what animals/us learn

Question 2

LATENT INHIBITION

Answer 2

LUBOW & MOORE (1959)
- above discovered it
- misnomer; nothing to do w/inhibition
- simple exposure to stimulus makes animal slower to learn about it later
KANIEL & LUBOW (1986)
- showed latent inhibition as function of age

Question 3

LATENT INHIBITION: CONTEXT SPECIFICITY

Answer 3

MCLAREN, BENNETT, PLAISTED, AITKEN & MACKINTOSH (1994)
- rats = pre-exposed to CS in 1 context; appetitively trained/conditioned w/CS in same/dif context
- CS/pre-CS scores gather for magazine entry
- highly STATSIG context-specificity effect (ie. ^ latent inhibition/poor learning in same group > dif
LOVIBOND, PRESTON & MACKINTOSH (19984)
- effect does NOT occur w/simple conditioning (ie. if experiment repeated but CS/US paired before switching contexts/testing w/o pre-exposure = no context switch effect

Question 4

PERCEPTUAL LEARNING

Answer 4

• when simple exposure to stimulus results in faster learning; typically via ^ rapid acquisition of discrimination between S+/S-
• can be explained by appealing to latent inhibition

Question 5

PL: GIBSON & WALK (1958)

Answer 5

• post pre-exposure to shapes in home cage, rats were better able to discriminate between them when trained in jumping stand compared to non-pre-exposed controls

Question 6

PL: MCLAREN, KAYE & MACKINTOSH (1989)

Answer 6

• theory that postulates associative basis for representation development
• associations between elements -> salience reduction (latent inhibition)
• SO less learning to those elements

Question 7

DIF LI OF COMMON ELEMENTS AS PL MECHANISM

Answer 7

• if shaded area for stimuli set possessing similarity structure = < less salient -> stimuli enhanced discriminability from one another follows
• at least 2 ways of bringing it about:
  1. stimulus set exposure differentially reduces salience of shaded area as features are encountered ^ oft so reliably predict each other
  2. prototypical stimulus corresponding to shaded area can be pre-exposed

Question 8

LI & PL: MCLAREN & MCKINTOSH (2000)

Answer 8

• conditioning measure = consumption of 1 of 2 novel vinegars (ie. red wine) post conditioning to other (ie. balsamic) following indicated pre-exposure
• low scores = high aversion = strong generalisation from condition of other vinegar
• less generalisation indicates perceptual learning

Question 9

PI: FACE INVERSION EFFECT

Answer 9

CIVILE ET AL. (2014)
- 2 images can be mistaken to be 2 dif photos of same person as inverted stimuli = harder to tell apart so upright recognition is superior
- BUT once orientated upright it’s clear they’re 2 dif people

Question 10

LI: FACIAL RECOGNITION

Answer 10

• application of common element research aka. same as vinegars example
• animal cognition + human psych
• average/prototypical facial features -> less salient; distinctive/unique features departing norm -> relatively more salient
• helps upright facial recognition BUT not upside down as we’re not used to them; representatives involved are orientation specific
• PI can be “turned off” for upright faces to reduce inversion effect via neurostimulation

Question 11

DIAMOND & CAREY (1986)

Answer 11

• inversion effect in old/new recognition experiment can be obtained w/other categories other than faces as well as pps = very familiar w/subjects (ie. experts w/gundogs)