Specificity of cue to consequence in aversion learning in the rat

Abstract

Garcia & Koelling (1966) showed that if rats are poisoned after ingesting a flavored solution in the presence of audiovisual cues, they will subsequently avoid only the taste stimulus, whereas if they are shocked, they learn to avoid only the audiovisual cues. The present experiments replicated these findings with one major change in experimental conditions: both taste and nongustatory CSs were presented in the absence of approach and ingestive behaviors to minimize involvement of ingestion in the associative process. (The taste CS was presented by flushing the oral cavity with a saccharin solution under conditions in which the rat would not drink.) Despite these changes, Garcia and Koelling's results were confirmed.

A comparison of learned aversions to gustatory and exteroceptive cues in rats

“…The present experiment is an attempt to extend this finding and compare the relative "associability" of gustatory and exteroceptive cues to illness in an experimental situation free of methodological problems found in previous research, and quite different from the design used by Domjan and Wilson (1972). In the experiment, subjects were poisoned following ingestion of water where either a discrete auditory stimulus during drinking or a gustatory stimulus was predictive of poisoning.…”

“…Domjan and Wilson (1972) have provided some evidence that the "taste aversion" phenomenon can be demonstrated in an experimental design free of these methodological problems. They used a between-subjects design, in which each subject experienced only one discrete stimulus (saccharin in water or a tone which sounded during water presentation) as a cue for poisoning.…”

Possible role of confounded taste stimuli in conditioned taste aversions

“…vestigators in animal learning recognize that notall stimuli are equally wellassociated withall important events. For example, when paired with a shock, pellet size or noise acquire a stronger association to the shock than doestaste, but when illness is used instead of shock, the taste acquiresthe strongerassociation (e.g., Domjan & Wilson, 1972;Garcia, McGowan, Ervin, & Koelling, 1968). This inequality has been referred to as cue to consequence learning.…”

“…Based on this model, the rapidity and robustness of the bottle-illness associations that SjOden and Archer (1983) reportwould not be expected. Fourth,though taste is easilyassociated withillness, the effectof otherstimuli comprising the context on illness associations has often been very small (e.g., Domjan & Wilson, 1972;Garcia & Koelling, 1966;Garcia et al, 1968). In other words, if, after consuming a bowl of cherries, you become ill 231 Copyright 1988 Psychonomic Society, Inc.…”

Failure to learn in a taste aversion paradigm: Associative or performance deficit?

“…Conversely, acquisition of conditioned responses can occur quickly if external cues predict painful events, while conditioning may occur slowly or not at all with a similar relationship between taste cues and noxious stimulation (e.g., Domjan & Wilson, 1972;Garcia & Koelling, 1966). These fmdings, sometimes collectively referred to as the "Garcia effect," have provided an important challenge to the traditional proposition that, within broad limits, stimuli are equivalent and interchangeable in conditioning (Revusky & Garcia, 1970;Seligman, 1970).…”