. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2009 Oct 22.

Published in final edited form as: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Oct;35(4):498–508. doi: 10.1037/a0014627

Table 1.

Design of Experiment 1

Group	Phase 1¹ Inhibition training	Phase 2² Preexposure	Phase 3² Conditioning	Test X¹ Prediction
Acq	48 A+ / 84 AB-	48 Y-	3 X+	CR
LI	48 A+ / 84 AB-	48 X-	3 X+	Cr
CmpdLI	48 C+ / 84 AB-	48 BX-	3 X+	Cr
InhibLI	48 A+ / 84 AB-	48 BX-	3 X+	CR

Note: A and C were a flashing light and a high frequency tone, counterbalanced; B was a white noise; X and Y were a click train and a low frequency tone, counterbalanced. “+” denotes footshock reinforcement, “-” denotes nonreinforcement. Superscripts indicate different contexts. Predictions are based on the extended comparator hypothesis (Denniston et al., 2001) with uppercase denoting stronger responding than lowercase (i.e., cr < Cr < CR).