Bidirectional contrast, matching, and power functions obtained in sucrose consumption by rats

Flaherty, Charles F.; Sepanak, Steven J.

doi:10.3758/bf03209620

Cited by 22 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 35 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

“…Moreover, ES-S showed a higher preshift to postshift DM intake decline relative to IS-S, and a lower mean DM intake of LQF during the postshift phase relative to ES-U and IS-S. These results suggest that subjects in ES perceived the hedonic difference between LQF and HQF to be much larger than subjects in IS did (Flaherty and Sepanak, 1978;Flaherty and Kaplan, 1979;Papini and Pellegrini, 2006), which is consistent with LQF having been devaluated in ES.On the basis of the well-established notion of incentive relativity (Flaherty, 1996), we believe that the devaluation of LQF may have resulted from its continuous comparisons with the highly preferred nutritional supplements fed during early experience. This type of comparison between foods of different quality is called 'simultaneous contrast', and has been argued to be particularly relevant for herbivores (Bergvall and Balogh, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 51%

“…A consummatory SNC effect is empirically represented by lower postshift consumption of the LQF in shift than in unshift subjects. The magnitude of the difference between preshift and postshift consumption is regarded as a measure of the perceived hedonic disparity between the HQF and the LQF (Flaherty and Sepanak, 1978;Papini and Pellegrini, 2006). In this study, we used the experienced sheep (ES; exposed to oat hay early in life) and inexperienced sheep (IS; not exposed to oat hay early in life) from our previous study (Catanese et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…overvaluation; e.g. Flaherty and Largen,1975;Flaherty and Sepanak, 1978;Bergvall and Balogh, 2009). This may help explain the increased intake of HQF in ES-S during the preshift phase of the SNC procedure when compared to IS-S, which was also observed in our previous study.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Devaluation of low-quality food during early experience by sheep

Catanese

Freidin

Cuello

et al. 2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ruminant's early experience with low-quality food (LQF) is expected to increase its acceptance and preference in adulthood. Contrarily, we found that experienced sheep (ES) exposed to mature oat hay early in life ate less of this LQF than inexperienced sheep (IS). A possibility is that ES might have devaluated the LQF through continuous comparisons against high-quality food (HQF) supplements (sunflower meal and ground corn) that were simultaneously available during early experience. In this study, we tested the devaluation hypothesis with a successive negative contrast (SNC) procedure. In a consummatory SNC procedure, 'shift' subjects are unexpectedly changed from HQF to LQF, and their consumption is then compared against the consumption of 'unshift' subjects that receive LQF all throughout the SNC procedure. The magnitude of the difference in consumption between preshift and postshift is regarded as a measure of the degree to which both foods (HQF and LQF) are perceived to differ hedonically. When sheep from our previous study were 300 days old, both ES and IS were randomly assigned to either shift (ES-S and IS-S) or unshift conditions (ES-U and IS-U; n 5 6 in each group). Groups ES-S and IS-S were fed HQF (alfalfa hay) during the preshift phase, and then suddenly changed to LQF (oat hay) in the postshift phase. Groups ES-U and IS-U (controls) were fed only LQF throughout the SNC procedure. Subjects in ES-S showed a significantly lower intake of LQF than those in ES-U in the first postshift session (i.e. they showed an SNC effect), which was not observed in IS. These results agree with ES subjects having devalued LQF during early experience. We discuss the possibility that high levels of nutrient supplementation can result in devaluation of LQF (i.e. decrease in preference and acceptance), whereas restricted levels of supplementation may promote a positive experience with LQF.Keywords: early experience, food valuation, low-quality food, sheep, successive negative contrast ImplicationsEarly experience with specific foods can improve their acceptance and preference later in life. However, our past and present results with sheep suggest that mere exposure to foods in early life may not be sufficient to attain that outcome. Behaviour towards a food source and learning about its consequences depend not only on the food's intrinsic properties but also on the alimentary context in which it is presented. Current results can be interpreted as showing that the use of high levels of nutrient supplementation can cause a negative experience with LQF (i.e. a decrease in the preference and acceptance), whereas restricted levels of supplementation (a more typical scenario) may promote the opposite result (i.e. enhanced experience with LQF). IntroductionEarly food experience has the potential to increase food acceptance (voluntary intake of a given food) and preference (choices among food alternatives) in ruminants (Provenza and Balph, 1987;Distel and Provenza, 1991;Distel et al., 1994). Moreover, preference for low-quality f...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 74%

mentioning

confidence: 51%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Devaluation of low-quality food during early experience by sheep

Catanese

Freidin

Cuello

et al. 2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This diminished intake occurs when the lower concentration is presented after the animal has had extended or minimal experience with the higher concentration (Flaherty, Ciszewski, & Kaplan, 1979;Flaherty, Troncoso, & Deschu, 1980;Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1968), as well as when the two solutions are repeatedly alternated in availability (Flaherty & Largen, 1975;Flaherty & Sepanak, 1978).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Anticipation of incentive gain

Flaherty

Checke

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

159

160

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In four experiments, the once daily availability of saccharin (.15%) preceded the availability of sucrose (32% or 2%). Experiment 1 showed that the intake of saccharin was reduced when it preceded 32% sucrose but not when it preceded 2% sucrose, as compared with saccharin-alone conditions. Experiment 2 showed that less saccharin was consumed when the saccharin preceded sucrose by 5 min than when there was a 30-min intersolution interval. Experiment 3 replicated this finding and showed that the presentation of the two solutions through the same or different access holes in the apparatus was not relevant to the result. Experiment 4 showed that there was an inverse relationship between saccharin intake and the length of the intersolution interval in the range of 1 to 30 min. These data were interpreted to indicate that the animals learn the predictive relationship between the saccharin and sucrose solutions and that the intake of the saccharin is reduced by an anticipatory contrast mechanism-a mechanism that may have restricted temporal parameters.The juxtaposition of sucrose solutions of high and low concentration leads to a reduced intake of the solution of lower concentration compared with conditions in which only the lower concentration is experienced. This diminished intake occurs when the lower concentration is presented after the animal has had extended or minimal experience with the higher concentration (Flaherty, Ciszewski, & Kaplan, 1979; Flaherty, Troncoso, & Deschu, 1980;Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1968), as well as when the two solutions are repeatedly alternated in availability (Flaherty & Largen, 1975;Flaherty & Sepanak, 1978).The diminished intake is termed a negative contrast effect-successive negative contrast when the lower concentration is presented after some experience with the higher concentration, and simultaneous negative contrast when the two solutions are repeatedly juxtaposed. There is some evidence that these two types of contrast may be controlled by somewhat different mechanisms (e.g., Flaherty, Lombardi, Wrightson, & Deptula, 1980).Recently we have found indications of another type of contrast, anticipatory contrast (Flaherty & Checke, Note 1). In the course of a study investigating possible conditioning of the glucoregulatory system with saccharin as a CS and sucrose as aVeS, we saw some evidence that the intake of saccharin was reduced when it served as a predictor of sucrose. The studies described in this paper explored this phenomenon. EXPERIMENT 1The purpose of the first experiment was to determine whether the presentation of a sucrose solution 5 min after the daily availability of a .J5070 saccharin solution would lower the intake of saccharin. A second purpose was to determine whether the concentration of the sucrose solution was important in determining the degree of suppression of saccharin.The basic procedure in this experiment, as well as in most of the other experiments in this paper, was as follows. A tube containing a .15% saccharin solution was made available for a 3-mi...

show abstract