title: Latent inhibition and compound conditioning: a reply to Holmes and Harris (2009).
abstract: Schmajuk, Lam, and Gray (SLG, 1996) presented a neural network model of classical conditioning that addresses the multiple properties of latent inhibition (LI). According to the model, LI is the result of the decreased attention to the target stimulus during preexposure and testing. Recently, Holmes and Harris (2009) suggested that, although the model was able to describe their experimental results showing that LI to a preexposed stimulus disappears with extended compound conditioning, it could not describe the fact that LI is not affected by a delay following compound conditioning. However, computer simulations demonstrate that the SLG model describes and explains both results. Because the model also explains both the deleterious and the facilitating effects on LI of a delay following simple conditioning, the SLG model seems unique in explaining the complete range of reported effects of temporal delays on LI as well as most of the properties of LI.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychology and Neuroscience, DukeUniversity, Durham, NC 27708, USA. nestor@duke.edu
authors.forename: Nestor
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Schmajuk
authors.forename: Munir G
authors.initials: MG
authors.lastname: Kutlu
mesh_terms: D000818:Animals; D001245:Association Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D003214:Conditioning, Classical / Q000502:physiology*; D005108:Extinction, Psychological; D007266:Inhibition, Psychological; D051381:Rats