One bottle too many? Method of testing determines the detection of overshadowing and retention of taste aversions

Batsell, W. Robert; Best, Michael R.

doi:10.3758/bf03213395

Cited by 80 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 16 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…These differences are direct replications of the retention interval effect that has been reported previously (e.g., Batsell & M. R. Best, 1992aBest, , 1992bBest, , 1993Biederman et al, 1974). Second, at the 5-day interval, a single US preexposure did not alter the strength of the aversion compared with that of a nonpreexposed control.…”

Section: Groupssupporting

confidence: 66%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The role of US novelty in retention interval effects in single-element taste-aversion learning

Batsell

Best

1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Retention interval effects are seen in taste-aversion learning when single-element aversions are significantly weaker 24 h after conditioning compared with tests at later intervals. This report contains three experiments which suggest that the source of the increased drinking at the I-day interval is nonassociative interference produced by the novel conditioning episode. In Experiment 1, a parametric analysis demonstrated that aversion strength increased monotonically over a 30-h period following conditioning, and that by 48 h after conditioning it was stabilized. In Experiment 2, a single US preexposure was used to reduce the novelty ofthe US prior to conditioning. As a result, animals preexposed to the US had stronger taste aversions than did nonpreexposed controls at a I-day retention interval; however, no differences were seen at a 5-day interval. Experiment 3 investigated whether the counterintuitive outcome of Experiment 2 was due to the summation of environment-illness and taste-illness associations at the I-day test. The results ruled out the summation argument; the US preexposure did not need to be presented in the conditioning context to strengthen the aversion at the I-day interval. Collectively, these results suggest that the presentation of a surprising US can interfere with the retrieval of the taste-illness association for a short period after conditioning, and that this contributes to the retention interval effect.

show abstract

Section: Groupssupporting

confidence: 66%

“…A one-bottle test was used because previous research has shown that it is more effective than a two-bottle method in detecting retention interval differences (Batsell & M. R. Best, 1993). Testing occurred over 2 consecutive days.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The role of US novelty in retention interval effects in single-element taste-aversion learning

Batsell

Best

1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Testing of aversions to the AL solution was conducted for 20 min daily on Days 5-9. A single-bottle test was chosen because previous work has shown this testing method to be more sensitive in detecting aversions of differential strength (Batsell & Best, 1993). Access for 20 min to supplemental water was provided in the afternoons (4 h after any experimental procedures) on all days.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Batson

Watkins

Doyle

et al. 2008

Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…It may be that any alternative detection procedure would have provided evidence for a conditioned salt aversion. For example, in many situations a two-bottle preference test has been shown to be a more sensitive procedure for indexing taste aversions than a one-bottle test (e.g., Dragoin, McCleary, & McCleary, 1971;Grote & Brown, 1971; but see Batsell & Best, 1993). If so, then a two-bottle preference test between the water and the salt solution used here might have revealed a decrease in preference for the salt solution in rats given salt-morphine pairings relative to controls (i.e., salt aversion).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Bevins

Delzer

Bardo

1996

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Morphine failed to condition a salt taste aversion at a dose (15 rug/kg) sufficient to produce a robust aversion to a saccharin taste. Indeed, three different concentrations of salt (1%, 1.5%, and 2%) paired with the same morphine dose yielded no direct evidence for conditioned aversion. Yet, when a novel saccharin taste was paired in compound with the previously conditioned salt conditioned stimulus, we found evidence for a conditioning to the saccharin cue alone in three separate experiments. Control groups eliminated alternative accounts such as neophobia and differential exposure to morphine. Combined, these findings indicate that morphine conditioned a salt aversion. Although this aversion was not directly expressed, a second-order conditioning procedure was able to provide a more sensitive index of conditioning.In the conditioned taste aversion preparation, a taste conditioned stimulus (CS) is paired with an illnessinducing unconditioned stimulus (US) such as LiCI or radiation. The use of this preparation by researchers has made important contributions to the fields of animal learning, psychopharmacology, pharmacology, toxicology, and biomedicine.

show abstract

One bottle too many? Method of testing determines the detection of overshadowing and retention of taste aversions

Cited by 80 publications

References 16 publications

The role of US novelty in retention interval effects in single-element taste-aversion learning

The role of US novelty in retention interval effects in single-element taste-aversion learning

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

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About