Conditioned inhibition training of the competing cue after compound conditioning does not reduce cue competition

In each of two experiments, we studied Pavlovian fear conditioning (as assessed by barpress conditioned suppression) in 32 albino rats. Following a two-stage cue-competition procedure (A+ then AX+), we subjected the competing cue (A) to conditioned inhibition training (B+, BA?) before testing the target cue (X). Conditioned inhibition training was designed to weaken the putative A-unconditioned stimulus (US) association, perhaps changing it to an A-no-US association. Performance-deficit theories of cue competition, such as comparator theory and retrieval-interference theory, predict that such procedures should weaken cue competition, causing Conditioned Stimulus X (CS X) to evoke strong responding. The same prediction can be deduced from recent acquisition-focused models (Dickinson &; Burke, 1996; Van Hamme &; Wasserman, 1994). In opposition to this prediction, however, we found in both experiments that conditioned inhibition training had no detectable effect on cue competition even though it successfully abolished conditioned responding to CS A. In Experiment 2, moreover, we found evidence against the hypothesis that the weak response to CS X was due to generalization decrement rather than to cue competition. Results favor early learning-deficit theories of cue competition over performance-deficit theories and over the recent acquisition-focused models.