The effects of conditioned taste aversions on the acquisition and maintenance of schedule-induced polydipsia

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

“…With repeated trials, schedule-induced polydipsia was reduced to approximately 0 ml. That repeated conditioning trials can effectively attenuate schedule-induced drinking precludes the argument that schedule-induced alcohol consumption is totally a function of the relative insensitivity of polydipsia to taste aversions (Riley et al, 1979). It was described earlier that scheduleinduced alcohol consumption occurs even though the taste of alcohol is paired with the aversive aftereffects of alcohol, suggesting that schedule-induced polydipsia was insensitive to conditioned taste aversions.…”

“…That a general insensitivity of schedule-induced polydipsia to conditioned taste aversions may underlie the occurrence of schedule-induced alcohol consumption is based on the fact that a taste paired with poison, for example, saccharin with LiCI, produces only a moderate and transient suppression of scheduleinduced polydipsia (Clarke & Westbrook, 1978;Riley et al, 1979). However, schedule-induced alcohol polydipsia is maintained over repeated sessions (Falk & Samson, 1975).…”

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

“…These data support the suggestion that, in relation to prandial-induced drinking, the relative insensitivity of SIP to conditioned taste aversions does not reflect the acquisition of weaker aversions due to the larger amounts of saccharin consumed during conditioning under polydipsia. That subjects conditioned under SIP showed aversions comparable to those of subjects trained under the massed feedings when tested under a situation without pellet deliveries suggests, further, that the aforementioned insensitivity reflects the pellet-induced tendency to drink under SIP (Rileyet al, 1980;Riley et al, 1979).…”

“…Under SIP, for example, subjects typically consume at asymptote approximately 25 ml of water in a l-h session on a variable-time 6O-sec schedule of pellet delivery. Under 23.5 h water deprivation or following a mass meal of 60 pellets, subjects asymptotically consume, on the average, 12 and 5 ml of water, respectively (see Riley et al, 1980;Riley et al, 1979). Following asymptotic drinking under each of these procedures, on-baseline conditioned taste aversion training is initiated.…”

The effect of tetracycline on schedule-induced polydipsia

“…Among the studies of fluid content are studies examining salinity (e .g., F alk, 1966), quinine adulteration (e.g., Segal & Deadwyler, 1965;Wayner & Greenberg, 1973), saccharin solutions (e.g., Colotla&Keehn, 1975Keehn, Colotla, & Beaton, 1970;Riley, Lotter, & Kulkosky, 1979), alcohol (e.g., Colotla & Keehn, 1975;Keehn & Coulson, 1975;Samson & Falk, 1974), and conditioned taste aversion (e.g., Riley et al, 1979;Roll, Schaeffer, & Smith, 1969). If anyone general conclusion can be drawn from these studies, it is that SIP is a robust phenomenon and occurs even when nonpreferred liquids are provided during experimental sessions.…”