Talk:Latent inhibition

LI is understood to be indicative of low intelligence and also a trait which can, under the right conditions, contribute substantially and positively to an individual's creative potential.

I understand that we are not speaking of synonymous qualifiers when we speak respectively of creativity and intelligence (It might be good to briefly define these terms), yet somehow this feels uncomfortably contradictory, or at least inconsistent._____

Line taken from Prison Break?

The following line, lacking a citation, seems to be taken from Prison Break, season 1 episode 9, about min. 29, in which the main character is diagnosed with Low LI and also a "excessive emphaty" toward other people feelings:

These individuals tend to sense other's pain and suffering as they are very sensitive persons.[citation needed]

I am not expert, but the coincidence is striking. Anyone has any other source for this statement?

WP:RS

I question the link to a document from the National Institute of Discovery Science, which is a politial advocacy group, not a scientific organization. The claim sounds rather dubious. ---CH 09:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

Peterson's work needs citation

Peterson has published work, with colleagues, in the journal Personality and Individual Differences in 2000 and 2002. These papers support the view that elevated openness to experience and creativity are linked with latent inhibition. If I have time to check the references, I shall add them here, as this is a brief article that desperately needs extension (in Wikipedia parlance, a stub). Also, perhaps a biologically orientated psychologist could say something about dopamine in connection with latent inhibition. ACEO 18:42, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I seem to recall that dopamine is significantly connected, and have heard the term in connection with ADHD and the dopaminergic systems.

Highly simplified, there is a dopaminergic system that acts as a "filter" for what stimuli require attention; this is hypoactive in people with ADHD, and hyperactive in some subtypes of schizophrenia. There appears to be a significant difference between people that acquire a "weaker" filter late in life, and those who "start out" with one.

The former might have an increased risk of psychosis and mental illness, as described in the article; I have no recollection of having read anything on that association either way.

The latter can sometimes excel, as their brain adapts to dealing with more input at one time, something that is useful if they are put in a situation where they can saturate it with useful input, but it's fairly detrimental otherwise.

Zuiram 15:53, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Prison Break

I just wanted to add that the main character on the show Prison Break is purported to have Low Latent Inhibition. This is said to make him a creative genius.

Michael Scofield (Wentworth Miller) is said to have LLI paired with a high IQ making him a creative genius.

And this article is, for some parts, an almost word-to-word transcript from the TV show. Is it really accurate?

My bad, I added that to the article too ;\ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.225.22.231 (talk) 12:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

-I noticed this when reading the article too. The whole first paragraph of 'Low latent inhibition' needs to be rewritten by someone who knows about the subject, and is not just a fan of the show Prison Break.

Problems

The problem with LLI is that with almost every innovation in the world already figured out in respect to groundbreaking advances in military, art, science, philosophy, psychology, etc., There is not much for a creative genuis to do besides break their brothers out of prison or become a sports guy. The Mayas, and less importantly, Einstein, have figured out the universe and that is why the world is going to be destroyed soon. We have became successful puppets of the Creator and now have no use for it. InternetHero 20:07, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

The world is going to be destroyed soon!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Weatherbed (talk • contribs) 06:58, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

     uh.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.18.229.20 (talk) 06:19, August 24, 2007 (UTC) 

It seems LLI has its uses in terms of formulating creative crackpot theories and dispersing them in inappropiate forums. 137.111.47.182 03:43, 31 July 2007 (UTC) Wotan

• what —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.142.137 (talk) 18:31, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Lacks Lucidity

While clinically accurate, the first two sentences of this article utilize very abstruse prose. The central idea is suffocated by multiple lengthy and ponderous subordinate clauses. I don't see how anyone but a highly-intellectual mental health professional can understand what is being communicated here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.225.230.223 (talk) 00:33, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

I just stopped by this article today, and agree with this statement. I'm going to put on a jargon tag, hopefully someone with more grasp of the subject will take note and tone it down a bit. Rodface (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

How about "In layman's terms, latent inhibition causes organisms to 'tune out' mundane, routine events." Is this (or some cleaner paraphrase) an accurate translation? 220.121.133.174 (talk) 18:07, 29 June 2010 (UTC)

This line is in desperate need for a citation

say is that they are less likely to ignore "irrelavent stimuli", and are more distracted by stimuli. There is no evidence that people with low LI have better memory for boring events, at least in the sources cited in this article (commentary on a blog doesn't count!) In fact, studies suggest that many people with low LI are quite the opposite, the most famous example are people with bipolar, who tend to have low latent inhibition and high creativity, but poor episodic memory (ability to recall past events) http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/bps/article/PIIS0006322300009100/abstract And since a large portion of the creative population seem to suffer from this disorder (more than half of successful artists and writers), this study is a good proxy on the creative population's overall ability to recall trivial events, which is probably poor. --Jtd00123 (talk) 20:56, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

I refined the article to some extent but did not delete the unsatisfactory sentence. Even though I have not deleted it in its entirety, I still think it is susceptible to just deletion. Reading sources on LLI, nowhere did I see mention of heightened trivial recall and so on and so on. Considering the statement has no citation, it can either have a {{cite}} appended to it or be deleted since it contradicts the information you have posited here. Whoever is venturer enough can take the plunge they choose.—argumzio ϝ 16:37, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I decided to take the dive. Anyway, after a certain period of time, provided that no citation is put forward, it can always be removed from the article.—argumzio ϝ 16:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Update: I've deleted it. If a source comes around, then someone can go ahead and re-add it with the satisfactory reference.—αrgumziω ϝ 21:59, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Mistake noticing

"When physics students saw the Aristotelian video with the aberrant balls, their DLPFCs kicked into gear and they quickly deleted the image from their consciousness. In most contexts, this act of editing is an essential cognitive skill. (When the DLPFC is damaged, people often struggle to pay attention, since they can’t filter out irrelevant stimuli.) However, when it comes to noticing anomalies, an efficient prefrontal cortex can actually be a serious liability. The DLPFC is constantly censoring the world, erasing facts from our experience. If the ACC is the “Oh shit!” circuit, the DLPFC is the Delete key. When the ACC and DLPFC “turn on together, people aren’t just noticing that something doesn’t look right,” Dunbar says. “They’re also inhibiting that information.”"

http://www.wired.com/magazine/2009/12/fail_accept_defeat/all/1 Possibly relevant. --Gwern (contribs) 13:47 22 December 2009 (GMT)

Splitting the article

Perhaps it would be better if there were separate articles for "Latent Inhibition", which is an interesting effect by itself (and about which there is very little information here) and "Low Latent Inhibition" which is a human mental condition, and should be discussed more thorroughly as well.

Both articles should be stubs, and later extended by adding sections about research results, experiments, and explanations (for LI) and about treatment, history and complications (for LLI). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.176.64.86 (talk) 14:46, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Suggestion denied. Look, the article isn't exactly overflowing with all the wealth and information that can be found on either topic. The article stays as is until it becomes too big, at which point splitting can occur. However, that isn't likely to happen. LLI is just a specific variation on LI, and HLI is the opposite to LLI. There's nothing that qualifies LLI or HLI as being "interesting effect by itself". In other words, LI is the general construct, and LLI and HLI are the two variants seen. It would be rather stupid to make an article on LLI (or HLI) and have to run over the same information that needs to be covered for LI in order to discuss LLI (or HLI), when all one has to do is leave things as they are.—αrgumziΩ^ϝ 16:32, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Above appreciated, but I must agree with the original comment that this may be two topics. One is a straightforward experimental psychology finding, the other is a set of observations about humans not yet clearly defined. Hopefully as more well sourced material is added, this can be split into two articles. EtherDoc (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Less talk about pop culture more facts and citations.

This article as written spends too much attention on one possible side effect of LLI. Somewhere in this article it should be stated that there are many studies showing Low Latent Inhibition's link to Schizophrenia. I have cited one here. Lipina, T., & Roder, J.. (2010). A new model of the disrupted latent inhibition in C57BL/6J mice after bupropion treatment. Psychopharmacology, 208(3), 487-98. Retrieved April 19, 2011, from ProQuest Nursing & Allied Health Source. (Document ID: 1943705441).

Anyone looking into this should also look at other sensory disorders associated to sensory overload such as Autisim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.238.32 (talk) 19:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Rewiritng the article

This article should be completely re-written. I have done so, but I can't figure out how to submit it in Wikipedia format. I have posted my edits in text format in my Sandbox http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Relubow/Sandbox. Can someone help with incorporating the changes into the article? Relubow (talk) 01:52, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

I've pasted in your content, crediting it to you, but not removed the existing content. That needs to be done in separate edits and separately justified. I recommend following the help links that I've put on your talk page, and inserting the {{Citation tools}} template somewhere on your user page or talk page, so that you can easily access tools that will allow you to create fully formatted references from the DOI or PMID numbers that academic journals normally have. The next text is lacking in wikilinks, so I advise that adding them is a sensible next step, especially for any technical terms. MartinPoulter (talk) 15:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

LI, personalities, replication

http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/~peterson/pdf/Peterson%20JB%20et%20al%20Openness%20extraversion%20LI%20PAID%202002.pdf "Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: replication and commentary" 2002:

We therefore attempted to determine if the combination of extraversion and openness (‘‘plasticity’’) was associated with reduced LI in a more typical student population (our previous work was conducted on Harvard undergraduates), using the NEO-FFI (Costa & McCrae, 1992). We also administered Gough’s (1979) Creative Personality Scale, as a measure logically convergent with both plasticity and openness, as well as two WAIS-R IQ scales (Wechsler, 1981), to control for the potential confounding effect of IQ on LI (which is arguably a cognitive as well as a motivational task).
...Results from this study were, if anything, clearer than those of our initial study—particularly with regards to the contribution of extraversion. This was perhaps due to the increased N (79 in this study in the post-exposure LI condition, compared to 58 in the original). It therefore seems reasonable to conclude that decreased LI may be associated with personality configurations that are non-pathological, or even positive, as well as serving as a potential risk factor or marker for psychosis. What might be the advantages, as well as the disadvantages, of decreased LI? We know that the DA system underlies exploratory response to novelty, and that LI appears to be a dopamine-dependent phenomenon, as discussed previously. Furthermore, we know that decreased LI can be associated with pathology, that such decreases can be elicited by corticosterone, a primary stress hormone, and that heightened levels of stress might produce the ‘‘sensory flooding’’ characteristic of psychosis (Shalev, Feldon, & Weiner, 1Openness and extraversion are associated with reduced latent inhibition: replication and commentary 998). Finally, it appears that decreased LI is associated with creative personality (present study) and with creative achievement (at least in populations characterized by outstanding academic performance) (Carson, Peterson, & Higgins, submitted).
...So what might distinguish the person who derives advantage, from a broader range of possibilities, from the one who risks submersion?
Berenbaum and Fujita (1994) have suggested that the combination of high openness and low intelligence might be associated with schizophrenia. We have found, in the same vein, that the combination of high IQ and low LI powerfully predicts creative achievement (Carson et al., 2002). We are also currently investigating the possibility that increased working memory might serve a similar function. First, working memory capability is assessed by measuring the number of independent elements that can simultaneously be tracked and manipulated (Petrides, 2000). This means at least in theory that broader working memory capacity might be useful for dealing with the broader array of affectively tagged stimuli that emerges as a consequence of reduced latent inhibition. Second, there is evidence for relatively specific working memory and attention deficits among schizophrenics and schizotypes (Elvevag & Goldberg, 2000; Kenny et al., 1999; Kirrane & Siever, 2000).

This would make the individual predisposed to schizophrenia suffering, in principle, from the pathological and possibly synergistic combination of excess experiential, ideational or associational variability, and a decrement in methods of selecting from that excess, while the healthy, open and creative individual would be characterized by a broader gate and careful post-experience selection and culling. So, we have an operationalized quasi-Darwinian approach to the problem of psychosis and creativity [as originally suggested by Campbell (1960) and Simonton (1999)]. There are many mutations in the real world, but most of them are harmful, or fatal. Likewise, many alternative modes of perception and cognition can be applied to a given problem, but most of them are useless, or counterproductive. The mutation problem is solved by selection: the environment culls the failures, and allows the successes to breed. The analogous perception problem is solved by higher-order cognition. Many possibilities emerge as a consequence of decreased LI. These are culled by careful consideration and analysis of the likely real-world environmental consequences of implementing them. Under optimal conditions, most are eliminated from further consideration. In the absence of such culling, however, the ‘‘mutations’’ overpower the functional categories, and the person begins to enact his or her pathological ideas.

--Gwern (contribs) 20:16 8 September 2011 (GMT)

clarification

why are people with low LI easily distracted? is it because they frequently resort to fantasy as a way of coping with being constantly overloaded? its not spelled out very clearly i feel. maybe im wrong, maybe im just tired. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.206.74.42 (talk) 03:06, 20 June 2013 (UTC)