Positive correlation between pre- and postconditioning saccharin intake in taste-aversion learning

In Experiment 1, rats poisoned following schedule-induced saccharin consumption showed a moderate reduction in the schedule-induced consumption of saccharin. With repeated poisoning, schedule-induced saccharin polydipsia was markedly reduced. Acquisition of conditioned aversion under the schedule-induced procedure was significantly slower than acquisition under water deprivation. In addition, recovery of consumption of the previously poisoned solution during extinction was more rapid under schedule-induced polydipsia. Experiment 2 revealed that schedule-induced polydipsia was less sensitive to suppression by conditioned aversions than a prandial drinking condition in which subjects were equally food deprived but were given a mass feeding instead of spaced pellet deliveries, suggesting that the relative insensitivity of schedule-induced polydipsia to conditioned taste aversions is not simply a function of different levels of food deprivation. This relative insensitivity is offered as a partial basis for the occurrence and maintenance of schedule-induced alcohol polydipsia.

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The interaction of conditioned taste aversions and schedule-induced polydipsia: Effects of repeated conditioning trials

Riley

Hyson

Baker

et al. 1980

“…It is possible that the weak and transient taste aversions under SIP do not reflect an increased tendency to drink induced by pellet delivery, but, instead, reflect the acquisition of a weaker aversion due to the relatively large amounts of saccharin consumed during conditioning. While some investigators report no relation between amounts consumed during conditioning and testing (Archer & Sjoden, 1979;Kalat, 1976), such a possibility is supported by Braveman and Crane (1977) and Deutsch (1978), who report that, while aversions are directly related to amount of solution consumed during conditioning, this relationship changes as the amount consumed exceeds 5 ml. Once this level is reached, aversions are inversely related to amount consumed; that is, weaker aversions are acquired with increase in levels consumed during conditioning.…”

mentioning

confidence: 82%

The insensitivity of schedule-induced polydipsia to conditioned taste aversions: Effect of amount consumed during conditioning

Hyson

Sickel

Kulkosky

et al. 1981

In Experiment 1, animals poisoned following schedule-induced or prandial-induced saccharin consumption subsequently showed identical aversions to saccharin when tested under water deprivation. In Experiment 2, animals conditioned to avoid saccharin to similar levels under water deprivation were differentially affected when saccharin was subsequently presented on the baselines of schedule-induced and prandial-induced drinking. Together, these data indicate that the differential effects observed on schedule-induced and prandial-induced drinking when animals are poisoned following consumption under these two schedules do not reflect the differential acquisition of taste aversions, but instead reflect the differential tendencies to drink induced by the spaced and massed feedings. 281In relation to drinking induced by water deprivation or the presentation of a single massed meal, scheduleinduced drinking (Falk, 1961) is insensitive to conditioned taste aversions; that is, the presentation of a previously poisoned saccharin solution only weakly and transiently suppresses schedule-induced polydipsia, an effect in marked contrast to the rapidly acquired and long-lasting aversions produced in water-deprived or mass-fed animals (Clarke &

“…Statistical analysis of all results was for the first test day, Day 21, only; data from later test days are reported, but they were not subjected to statistical test because weaker effects were expected after the first test day. The analysis of covariance with Day 18 as the covariate was used whenever appropriate since Archer and Sjoden (1979) had reported intersubject correlations that insured that such a method would increase sensitivity, an observation that has also been repeatedly made in our laboratory on a less formal basis. In the event of significant (p < .05) inhomogeneity of regression, the same data were subjected to an ordinary ANOY A and the inhomogeneity was ignored if the same statistical decision was reached.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

US preexposure: Effects on flavor aversions produced by pairing a poisoned partner with ingestion

Revusky

Coombes

Pohl

1982

If an unpoisoned rat drinks a flavored solution and then is exposed to another rat suffering from lithium poisoning, the unpoisoned rat will later exhibit a flavor aversion. This is called the poisoned partner effect (PPE). The present experiments showed that (1) the US preexposure effect applies to the PPE since, if the unpoisoned rat is preexposed to poisoned partners, the PPE is attenuated, (2) the magnitude of the PPE increases with the dose of poison, and (3) a poisoned partner accustomed to poisoning produces a slightly weaker PPE than a partner naive to poisoning, Two earlier findings were confirmed: (1) The PPE occurs because the poisoned partner is an aversive US, not because a learned aversion is transferred from one rat to another; and (2) the PPE is weaker than an aversion produced by poisoning itself.