Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2018 Dec;25(6):2102-2118.
doi: 10.3758/s13423-018-1455-4.

Human latent inhibition: Problems with the stimulus exposure effect

N C Byrom  1 , R M Msetfi  2 , R A Murphy  3
Affiliations
Review

Human latent inhibition: Problems with the stimulus exposure effect

N C Byrom et al. Psychon Bull Rev. 2018 Dec.

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.

Keywords: Associative learning; Latent inhibition; Masking tasks; Priming.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Data redrawn from Rescorla (1971), showing change in mean suppression ratio of Phase 2 trials for a preexposed and non-preexposed group
Fig. 2
Fig. 2
Three panels showing 2 × 2 contingency tables displaying the four possible combinations of response − outcome information. The S-O contingency is illustrated across three panels. Panel A shows a generic overview for calculating S-O contingency. S-O contingency can be viewed as a matric of four trial events, where a, b, c, and d represent the frequencies of each S-O conjunction. Contingency is determined by the difference between the likelihood of the outcome occurring in the presence of the St [a/(a + b)] with the absence of the St [c/(c + d)]. A normative model for the S-O contingency (Allan, 1980) takes the difference between these two conditional probabilities ΔP = a/(a + b) - c/(c + d). Panel B shows the S-O contingency tables for a preexposed stimulus in Phase 1 and Phase 2 of a standard LI test. Panel C shows the S-O contingency tables Phase 1 and Phase 2 combined for a preexposed and non-preexposed stimulus
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Allan LG. A note on measurement of contingency between two binary variables in judgment tasks. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society. 1980;15(3):147–149.
    1. Allan LM, Williams JH, Wellman NA, Tonin J, Taylor E, Feldon J, Rawlins JNP. Effects of tobacco smoking, schizotypy and number of pre-exposures on latent inhibition in healthy subjects. Personality and Individual Differences. 1995;19(6):893–902.
    1. Baker AG. Learned irrelevance and learned helplessness: Rats learn that stimuli, reinforcers, and responses are uncorrelated. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1976;2(2):130.
    1. Baker AG, Mackintosh NJ. Preexposure to the CS alone, US alone, or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition, blocking by context or learned irrelevance? Learning and Motivation. 1979;10(3):278–294.
    1. Baker AG, Mercier P. Extinction of the context and latent inhibition. Learning and Motivation. 1982;13(4):391–416.

LinkOut - more resources