Effects of a preferred vs a nonpreferred CS in the establishment of a taste aversion

Etscorn, Frank

doi:10.3758/bf03326856

Cited by 31 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This putative initial positive reinforcement is unlikely to have been strong because it ultimately led to an aversive response. This is consistent with previous experiments in locusts Lee and Bernays, 1990) and vertebrates (Etscorn, 1973) that have shown that the acquisition of an aversive response through post-ingestive mechanisms is stronger when toxic malaise is associated with less preferred foods, and weaker with highly palatable foods. Our results show that this hypothetical initial appetitive memory was not formed with the sensory inputs of the locusts' palps, which are sensory structures known to play an important role in food selection (Blaney and Chapman, 1970;Chapman and Sword, 1993).…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

A long-latency aversive learning mechanism enables locusts to avoid odours associated with the consequences of ingesting toxic food

Simões

Ott

Niven

2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYAvoiding food that contains toxins is crucial for the survival of many animals, particularly herbivores, because many plants defend themselves with toxins. Some animals can learn to avoid food containing toxins not through its taste but by the toxinsʼ effects following ingestion, though how they do so remains unclear. We studied how desert locusts (Schistocerca gregaria), which are generalist herbivores, form post-ingestive aversive memories and use them to make appropriate olfactory-based decisions in a Y-maze. Locusts form an aversion gradually to an odour paired with food containing the toxin nicotine hydrogen tartrate (NHT), suggesting the involvement of a long-latency associative mechanism. Pairing of odour and toxin-free food accompanied by NHT injections at different latencies showed that locusts could form an association between an odour and toxic malaise, which could be separated by up to 30min. Tasting but not swallowing the food, or the temporal separation of odour and food, prevents the formation of these long-latency associations, showing that they are post-ingestive. A second associative mechanism not contingent upon feeding operates only when odour presentation is simultaneous with NHT injection. Postingestive memory formation is not disrupted by exposure to a novel odour alone but can be if the odour is accompanied by simultaneous NHT injection. Thus, the timing with which food, odour and toxin are encountered whilst foraging is likely to influence memory formation and subsequent foraging decisions. Therefore, locusts can form specific long-lasting aversive olfactory associations that they can use to avoid toxin-containing foods whilst foraging.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 81%

A long-latency aversive learning mechanism enables locusts to avoid odours associated with the consequences of ingesting toxic food

Simões

Ott

Niven

2012

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clicks are, in these respects, more analogous to the bitter and/or sour flavours of plants containing even more toxic compounds (Etscorn, 1973;Chambers, 1990;Cipollini and Levey, 1997; than to the bright but benign colours and patterns of defended or mimetic animals (Schuler and Hesse, 1985;Roper and Redston, 1987). We predict that for aerialhawking echolocating bats, these acoustic signals are more readily associated with unpalatability than visual and/or olfactory signals and, more than this, that dogbane tiger moth clicks are more readily associated with unpalatability than would be equally detectable, but otherwise undisruptive, acoustic signals.…”

Section: Synthesismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In C. tenera, we hypothesize that a similar parallel process shaped both signal and secondary chemical defence. Furthermore, given the proposed negative qualities of C. tenera clicks on echoic information processing (Miller, 1991;Fullard et al, 1979Fullard et al, , 1994Tougaard et al, 1998Tougaard et al, , 2004 in bats (as a result of affecting echolocation behaviour when first produced and overlapping temporally with calls during most aerial hawking attacks), these signals are not only conspicuous and possibly reliable indicators of further defence (sensu Sherratt, 2002;Sherratt and Beatty, 2003) but also especially effective signals of negative consequences in particular (sensu Etscorn, 1973).…”

Section: Aerial Hawkingmentioning

confidence: 99%

The adaptive function of tiger moth clicks against echolocating bats: an experimental and synthetic approach

Ratcliffe

Fullard

2005

Journal of Experimental Biology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors apologise for this mistake and any inconvenience caused to readers. 4689The evolutionary arms race between insectivorous echolocating bats and moths has long fascinated biologists (Roeder, 1967;Fullard, 1998;Miller and Surlykke, 2001;Jones and Rydell, 2003;Waters, 2003). The primary purpose of the moth's simple ear -to detect bat echolocation callshas made this a particularly useful model for study (Fullard, 1988;Waters, 2003). The ears of moths have evolved as a direct result of selective pressure by bats; they are broadly tuned to the frequency ranges of sympatric insectivorous bat communities and inform the central nervous system to initiate erratic flight behaviours and/or stop flying (Fullard, 1988;Hoy et al., 1989). As part of the acoustic startle response, some species of tiger moths (family Arctiidae) produce clicks using thoracic tymbals that appear to deter attacks from nearby bats (Dunning and Roeder, 1965; Hirstov and Conner, 2005a). Many arctiid species contain sequestered or synthesized defensive chemicals (Rothschild et al., 1970;Weller et al., 1999;Nishida, 2002) unpalatable to a variety of predators, including bats (Dunning, 1968;Coutts et al., 1973;Goss, 1979;Boppré, 1990;Hristov and Conner, 2005b).The clicks of arctiid moths have been proposed to function as acoustic aposematic signals (Blest et al., 1963;Dunning and Roeder, 1965;Dunning, 1968;Hristov and Conner, 2005a) and as signals that interfere with information processing facilitating escape, by startling the bat (deimatism) and/or jamming echolocation (Bates and Fenton, 1990;Fullard et al., 1979Fullard et al., , 1994Miller, 1991;Masters and Raver, 1996;Tougaard et al., 1998Tougaard et al., , 2004. These functional hypotheses are not mutually exclusive although they are often portrayed as such (e.g. Surlykke and Miller, 1985;Fullard et al., 1994;Waters, 2003; Hristov and Miller, 2005a). Until recently (Hristov and Conner, 2005a), all laboratory studies had used (1) synthetic bat echolocation calls and stationary moths, (2) synthetic arctiid clicks and stationary bats or (3) free-flying bats capturing mealworms while synthetic clicks were broadcast >1·m away from the prey trajectory (see Waters, 2003 and We studied the efficiency and effects of the multiple sensory cues of tiger moths on echolocating bats. We used the northern long-eared bat, Myotis septentrionalis, a purported moth specialist that takes surface-bound prey (gleaning) and airborne prey (aerial hawking), and the dogbane tiger moth, Cycnia tenera, an eared species unpalatable to bats that possesses conspicuous colouration and sound-producing organs (tymbals). This is the first study to investigate the interaction of tiger moths and wild-caught bats under conditions mimicking those found in nature and to demand the use of both aerial hawking and gleaning strategies by bats. Further, it is the first to report spectrograms of the sounds produced by tiger moths while under aerial attack by echolocating bats. During both aerial hawking and gleaning trials, all muted C...

show abstract

“…As is the case with any new exciting phenomenon, studies and applications reflecting specialized interests frequently precede parametric and methodological experiments. Some obvious exceptions are the parametric studies on the nature of the CS (Dragoin, 1971;Etscorn, 1973) the US (Dragoin, 1971: Garcia, Ervin, & Koelling, 1967Revusky, 1968), and the CS-US interval (Kalat & Rozin, 1971: Nachman, 1970: Revusky, 1968Smith & Roll, 1967). Dragoin, McCleary, and McCleary (1971) compared the forced-choice and preference procedures for evaluating conditioned taste aversions and found the latter to be the more sensitive of the two.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Illness-induced taste aversion under states of deprivation and satiation

Peck

Ader

1974

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A taste aversion to saccharin was induced under conditions of satiation or deprivation. Subsequent testing occurred under the same or opposite conditions. A preference test yielded significant drug-placebo effects only under similar training and testing conditions. Ss trained and tested under satiation produced the greatest drug-placebo differences. The data are discussed in terms of state dependency and the procedures used to induce and measure the taste aversion.

show abstract

Effects of a preferred vs a nonpreferred CS in the establishment of a taste aversion

Cited by 31 publications

References 4 publications

A long-latency aversive learning mechanism enables locusts to avoid odours associated with the consequences of ingesting toxic food

A long-latency aversive learning mechanism enables locusts to avoid odours associated with the consequences of ingesting toxic food

The adaptive function of tiger moth clicks against echolocating bats: an experimental and synthetic approach

Illness-induced taste aversion under states of deprivation and satiation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About