A within-event analysis of taste-potentiated odor and contextual aversions

Abstract

A series of experiments was conducted to examine the phenomenon of potentiation. Experiment 1 demonstrated potentiation of odor aversions by taste when morphine served as the unconditioned stimulus (US). Experiment 2 provided evidence that the observed potentiation was due to a within-event association between odor and taste stimuli, rather than reflecting an enhanced odor-morphine association. In Experiment 3, morphine supported place conditioning to contextual cues and aversive conditioning to a taste cue, but potentiation of place conditioning by a taste cue was not obtained. Apparently the absence of potentiation was due to the dual nature of the morphine US, as potentiation of a contextual aversion by taste was obtained in Experiment 4 when a strictly aversive US (lithium) was used. These data suggest that potentiation depends on (1) an initially weak association between the to-be-potentiated conditioned stimulus (CS) element and the US, and (2) the elicitation of qualitatively similar responses by the individual elements of the CS compound. Collectively, these results support an explanation of potentiation based on within-event learning.When a compound conditioned stimulus (CS) composed of two or more elements is paired with an unconditioned stimulus (US), the elements of the CS are assumed to compete for associative strength. The typical finding is that the more salient element becomes conditioned, whereas remaining CS elements are overshadowed and elicit a weaker conditioned response (CR) (Kamin, 1969;Mackintosh, 1971). An exception to this finding is a situation in which some subjects are presented with 'an odor CS followed by an illness-inducing injection of lithium chloride (LiCl), whereas others are presented with a compound odor-taste CS followed by a LiCI injection. When subsequently tested with the odor stimulus alone, subjects conditioned with the compound odor-taste CS show a stronger aversion than those conditioned with the odor CS alone

Differences in taste-potentiated odor aversions with O+/OT+ versus OT+/O+ conditioning: Implications for configural associations

“…Clearly, more direct tests of the configural-elemental model are required, but at present, it provides a viable explanation of much of the TPOA literature. our lab (Batsell et al, 2001;Trost & Batsell, 2004) and other labs (Durlach & Rescorla, 1980;Miller et al, 1986;von Kluge, Perkey, & Peregord, 1996;Westbrook et al, 1983). Furthermore, the evidence from our postconditioning taste-inflation experiments also refuted the prediction that postconditioning manipulations of the taste aversion would not alter a potentiated odor aversion .…”

“…Figure 4 shows the groups' mean AL consumption averaged across the 6 test days. Group differences were significant [F(2,27) ditioning taste-extinction manipulation that has been used in other studies (e.g., Durlach & Rescorla, 1980;Miller, McCoy, Kelly, & Bardo, 1986). In Experiment 3, we sought to determine whether postconditioning taste extinction after the first conditioning phase would interfere with the order effect difference.…”

Overshadowing not potentiation of illness-based contextual conditioning by a novel taste

“…Experiments by P. J. Best, M. R. Best, and Mickley (1973), Klein and Elder (1987), Klein, Freda, and Mikulka (1985), and Miller, McCoy, Kelly, and Bardo (1986) have all found that subjects given access to a saccharin solution during conditioning show, at most, only a marginally greater aversion than subjects given plain water. 1 Importantly, for the interpretation of these results, P. J.…”

Taste-potentiated color aversions in pigeons: Examination of CS preexposure and subsequent effects on postconditioning extinction of the taste aversion

“…In rats, it has been found that taste potentiates the aversive reaction to an odor (e.g., Droungas & LoLordo, 1991;Durlach & Rescorla, 1980;Kiefer, Rusiniak, & Garcia, 1982;Lett, 1984;Miller, McCoy, Kelly, & Bardo, 1986;Palmerino, Rusiniak, & Garcia, 1980;Rusiniak, Hankins, Garcia, & Brett, 1979;Westbrook, Homewood, Horn, & Clarke, 1983), to visual properties of conditioned stimuli (Galef & Osborne, 1978), to auditory properties of conditioned stimuli (Ellins, Cramer, & Whitmore, 1985;Ellins & von Kluge, 1987), to the conditioning environment (Best, Batson, Meachum, Brown, & Ringer, 1985;Best & Meachum, 1986;Miller et al, 1986), and to a second taste (Davis, Best, & Grover, 1988;Davis et al, 1990;Kucharski & Spear, 1985). In birds, it has been found that taste potentiates the aversive reaction to colored water (Franchina, Wright, Smith, Penn, & Soeken, 1993;Jackson & Fritsche, 1989;Lett, 1980Lett, , 1984 and to colored food (Brett, Hankins, & Garcia, 1976;Martin & Lett, 1985).…”

“…In the taste-potentiated odor-aversion paradigm, several authors have found that postconditioning extinction of the taste aversion attenuated associated odor aversions (Durlach & Rescorla, 1980;Miller et al, 1986;Westbrook et al, 1983). Likewise, several authors have found that when one taste is used to potentiate the aversive reactions to a second taste, postconditioning extinction of one taste aversion attenuates the potentiated aversion to the second taste (Davis et al, 1988;Davis et al, 1990;Kucharski & Spear, 1985).…”