2008
DOI: 10.1016/j.lmot.2008.02.002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Further evidence for the summation of latent inhibition and overshadowing in rats’ conditioned taste aversion

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6
1
1

Relationship

2
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 38 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Critically, the group that experienced both preexposure X and overshadowing (AX-O) training responded more to X during test than the group that received overshadowing training alone, thus supporting the idea that preexposure to X attenuates overshadowing (note that there was no X-O elemental training group in this experiment, but instead an unpaired control). Although replication of these results has not been successful (Nagaishi & Nakajima, 2008; Nakajima & Nagaishi, 2005), they suggest that under some conditions, preexposure to X can attenuate overshadowing and reverse it into potentiation.…”
Section: Variations In Contingencymentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Critically, the group that experienced both preexposure X and overshadowing (AX-O) training responded more to X during test than the group that received overshadowing training alone, thus supporting the idea that preexposure to X attenuates overshadowing (note that there was no X-O elemental training group in this experiment, but instead an unpaired control). Although replication of these results has not been successful (Nagaishi & Nakajima, 2008; Nakajima & Nagaishi, 2005), they suggest that under some conditions, preexposure to X can attenuate overshadowing and reverse it into potentiation.…”
Section: Variations In Contingencymentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Although the running-based flavor aversion is weak in effect compared with poison-based flavor aversion, many behavioral features of Pavlovian conditioning have been demonstrated in this preparation as shown in Table 1 (see also Boakes & Nakajima, 2009, for an early review). All of the features shown in this table have been also demonstrated in poison-based FAL: law of contiguity despite long-delay learning (e.g., Garcia et al, 1966;Nachman, 1970), extinction and spontaneous recovery (e.g., Berman et al, 2003;Rosas & Bouton, 1996), CS-preexposure effect (e.g., Fenwick et al, 1975;Nagaishi & Nakajima, 2008), remote US-preexposure effect (see Riley & Simpson, 2000, for a review), proximal US-preexposure effect (see Best, 1982, for a review), degraded contingency effect (Monroe & Baker, 1979), inhibitory learning by backward conditioning (e.g., Green & Garcia, 1971;Hasegawa, 1981), stimulus overshadowing (e.g., Bond, 1983;Lindsey & Best, 1973), associative blocking (e.g., Gillan & Domjan, 1977;Revusky, 1977), and higher-order contextual control (e.g., Loy & López, 1999;Nakajima et al, 1995). Some of these have been reported in swimming-based FAL.…”
Section: Parallels With Other Pavlovian Conditioning Preparations Incmentioning
confidence: 57%
“…In this study, we adopted a generalized bait-shyness paradigm, where oral intake of toxic lithium chloride (LiCl) solution yields conditioned aversion in rats to other salty, but safe, liquids such as sodium chloride (NaCl) solution (Balagura & Smith, 1970;Balagura, Brophy, & Davenport, 1972;Nachman, 1963;Smith & Balagura, 1969). Lately, this conditioning paradigm has been used for a variety of experimental purposes (e.g., Arriola, Alonso, & Rodríguez, 2014Baird, John, & Nuyen, 2005;Loy & Hall, 2002;Nagaishi & Nakajima, 2008;Nakajima & Nagaishi, 2005), partly because it better mimics natural conditions compared with conventional conditioned taste aversion, which is induced by an intraperitoneal (i.p.) injection of LiCl after the target taste intake (see Arriola, Alonso, Vázquez, & Rodríguez, 2015, for a discussion of this procedure).…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%