Conditioned Stimulus Form Does Not Explain Failures to See Pavlovian‐Instrumental‐Transfer With Ethanol‐Paired Conditioned Stimuli

Abstract

Background Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer (PIT) examines the effects of associative learning upon instrumental responding. Previous studies examining PIT with ethanol-maintained responding showed increases in responding following presentation of an ethanol-paired Conditioned Stimulus (CS). Recently, we conducted two studies examining PIT with an ethanol-paired CS. One of these found increases in responding, while the other did not. This less robust demonstration of PIT may have resulted from the form of the CS used, as we used a 120-s light stimulus as a CS, while the previous studies used either a 120-s auditory stimulus or a 10-s light stimulus. The present study examined whether using conditions similar to our earlier study, but with either a 120-s auditory or a 10-s light stimulus as a CS, resulted in more robust PIT. We also examined the reliability of our previous failure to observe PIT. Methods Three experiments were conducted examining whether PIT was obtained using (1) a 120-s light stimulus, (2) a 10-s light stimulus, or (3) a 120-s auditory stimulus as CSs. Results We found PIT was not obtained using (1) a 120-s light stimulus as a CS, (2) a 10-s light stimulus as a CS, or (3) a 120-s auditory stimulus as a CS. Conclusions These results suggest that CS form does not account for our earlier failure to see PIT. Rather, factors like rat strain or how ethanol drinking is induced may account for when PIT is or is not observed.

Nicotine as a discriminative stimulus for ethanol use

“…Pharmacological specificity of drug-primed reinstatement is typical in common reinstatement procedures (i.e., the self-administered drug or substantially similar drugs reinstate responding while dissimilar drugs do not), and is often used to support the notion of the drug itself, functioning as a conditioned stimulus for self-administered effects of the drug, prompts a return to drug-seeking. However, there is only limited support for the ability of conditioned stimuli to prompt a return to drug seeking (Lamb et al, 2016a, 2016b, 2017). Rather, the present result suggest that this specificity might simply result from the self-administered drug coming to set the occasion for subsequent use, and thus functioning as a discriminative stimulus rather than a conditioned stimulus (Lamb et al, 2016b; Slikker et al, 1984).…”

“…Five rats (Subjects 1–5) were trained with nicotine as a discriminative stimulus for ethanol (Nicotine-Ethanol group), and three others (Subjects 6–8) were trained with nicotine as a discriminative stimulus for food (Nicotine-Food group), as described below. Previously, these rats had been trained to respond for ethanol (8% w/v in water) under a random-interval schedule using a postprandial induction procedure (see Lamb et al, 2017 for further information). Subjects 1–6 were trained under a random-interval schedule in which the overhead houselight served as a discriminative stimulus (Lamb et al, 2017; Experiment 2), while subjects 7–8 were trained with a tone serving as a discriminative stimulus (Lamb et al, 2017; Experiment 1).…”

“…Previously, these rats had been trained to respond for ethanol (8% w/v in water) under a random-interval schedule using a postprandial induction procedure (see Lamb et al, 2017 for further information). Subjects 1–6 were trained under a random-interval schedule in which the overhead houselight served as a discriminative stimulus (Lamb et al, 2017; Experiment 2), while subjects 7–8 were trained with a tone serving as a discriminative stimulus (Lamb et al, 2017; Experiment 1). For additional details about the training and history of these rats, see Lamb et al, (2017).…”

“…Subjects 1–6 were trained under a random-interval schedule in which the overhead houselight served as a discriminative stimulus (Lamb et al, 2017; Experiment 2), while subjects 7–8 were trained with a tone serving as a discriminative stimulus (Lamb et al, 2017; Experiment 1). For additional details about the training and history of these rats, see Lamb et al, (2017). Subjects were fed a daily ration of food after operant sessions to maintain body weights ranging from 320–330g.…”

Under the influence of the environment: Children’s responding invigorated and biased by predictive cues

“…The PIT effect has been extensively reported in human and non-human animal studies (e.g., Alarcón & Bonardi, 2016;Alarcón, Bonardi & Delamater, 2017;Colwill & Rescorla, 1988;Delamater, 1996;Holland, 2004;Kruse, Overmier, Konz & Rokke, 1983), and it has been related to a number of different phenomena such as drug addiction, overeating, stress, schizophrenia, and depression, among others (e.g., Alarcón & Delamater, 2019;Colagiuri & Lovibond, 2015;Garbusow et al, 2016;Lamb, Ginsburg & Schindler, 2017;Morris et al, 2015;Quezada, Alarcón, Miguez & Betancourt, 2011;Quail, Morris & Balleine, 2017;Watson et al, 2014). Although PIT has proved a versatile task that yields robust effects, it has only been used to study adults and there are as yet no studies exploring the effect in the child population.…”