Retrospective revaluation of associative retroactive cue interference

Abstract

Two fear-conditioning experiments with rats assessed whether retrospective revaluation, which has been observed in cue competition (i.e., when compounded cues are followed with an outcome), can also be observed in retroactive cue interference (i.e., when different cues are reinforced in separate phases with the same outcome). Experiment 1 found that after inducing retroactive cue interference (i.e., X-outcome followed by A-outcome), nonreinforced presentations of the interfering cue (A) decreases interference with responding to the target cue (X), just as has been observed in retrospective revaluation experiments in cue competition. Using the opposite manipulation (i.e., adding reinforced presentations of A), Experiment 2 demonstrated that after inducing retroactive cue interference, additional reinforced presentations of the interfering cue (A) increases interference with responding to the target cue (X); alternatively stated, the amount of interference increases with the amount of training with the interfering cue. Thus, both types of retrospective revaluation occur in retroactive cue competition. The results are discussed in terms of the possibility that similar associative mechanisms underlie cue competition and cue interference.

Figure 1

A 2 × 2 matrix of different types of associative interference and competition, all of which produce a decrease in control of behavior by the target stimulus (X). In each cell some representative examples are listed (after Miller & Escobar, 2002). O1 and O2 are outcomes of opposite valence; X and A are cues. See text for discussion.

Figure 2

Results of Experiment 1. Mean times to complete 5 cumulative s of drinking in the presence of the target CS X. Higher scores represent stronger responding to the test CS. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. 0.70 = no suppression. See text and Table 1 for details.

Figure 3

Results of Experiment 2. Mean times to complete 5 cumulative s of drinking in the presence of the target CS X. Higher scores represent stronger responding to the test CS. Error bars represent standard error of the mean. 0.70 = no suppression. See text and Table 2 for details.