The Influence of Flavored Solution Concentration on the Poisoned-Partner Effect

Iraola, J. A.; Alonso, Gumersinda

doi:10.1006/nlme.1995.1015

Cited by 7 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 0 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…During habituation sessions, observer and demonstrator rats were familiarized with the interaction procedure and with consuming a powdered version of regular chow (Prolab, Labdiet, St. Louis, MO) from ramekins. Before the training session, demonstrator rats received one of two novel flavored foods A and B—powdered regular chow mixed either with cinnamon (1%; McCormick, Sparks, MD) or cocoa (2%; Hershey’s, Hershey, PA) powder; note that this differentiates STFP from the “poisoned partner effect” (Hishimura, 2000; Iraola & Alonso, 1995), wherein it is the subject rat that consumes the conditional stimulus prior to the interaction. Observer and demonstrator rats were then placed together in an opaque plastic cage and allowed to interact for 30 min.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and flexibility of the message carried by semiochemical stimuli, as revealed by devaluation of carbon disulfide followed by social transmission of food preference.

Maier¹,

Blankenship²,

Barry³

et al. 2014

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Semiochemicals are volatile compounds that communicate specific meaning between individuals, and elicit specific behavioral and/or physiological responses mediated by highly sensitive and highly specific olfactory pathways. Recent work suggests that semiochemicals can activate multiple olfactory pathways at once, but the degree to which parallel pathways activated by the same semiochemical interact, and what the behavioral consequences of such interactions are, remains a topic of debate. Here we approached this question behaviorally, investigating whether rats could be trained to avoid carbon disulfide (CS2) via taste-potentiated odor aversion, and asking whether any such learning would have an impact on the rats’ subsequent use of CS2 as a semiochemical cue (i.e., in a socially transmitted food preference paradigm). The results show that CS2-mediated food preference learning is unimpaired by aversions conditioned to CS2, a result indicating that canonical and semiochemical pathways for the processing of CS2 function in a largely independent manner.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Stability and flexibility of the message carried by semiochemical stimuli, as revealed by devaluation of carbon disulfide followed by social transmission of food preference.

Maier¹,

Blankenship²,

Barry³

et al. 2014

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, several pieces of data present challenges to Grigson's suggestions: (a) the fact that increasing concentrations of the gustatory CS produced a higher suppressive effect was probably not only the case for drugs of abuse (Gomez & Grigson, 1999;Grigson, 1997) but also to the conventionally aversive malaise drugs such as LiCl (Ellins & Kennedy, 1995;Iraola & Alonso, 1995;Klosterhalfen & Klosterhalfen, 1985). In Experiment 3, Grigson (1997) did not use increasing concentrations of saccharin solution to compare the LiCl-induced suppression against that of morphine.…”

mentioning

confidence: 98%

Re-examination of amphetamine-induced conditioned suppression of tastant intake in rats: The task-dependent drug effects hypothesis.

Huang¹,

Hsiao²

2008

Behavioral Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This study reexamined Grigson's reward comparison hypothesis (1997), which claimed to have resolved the paradox of addictive, rewarding drugs manifesting an aversive effect in the conditioned taste aversion (CTA) paradigm. Here, the authors compared the conditioned suppression effects of lithium chloride (LiCl) and amphetamine in a series of three experiments. In Experiment 1, the concentrations of saccharin solution (conditioned stimulus [CS]) and the doses of amphetamine or LiCl (unconditioned stimulus [US]) were manipulated. In Experiment 2, the effects of employing backward versus forward pairings of the CS and US were compared. Finally, in Experiment 3, the additivity of amphetamine's reward property and LiCl's aversive property was examined. The results of these experiments, respectively, indicated that: (1) manipulating saccharin solution concentrations does not distinguish the suppression effect caused by rewarding or aversive effects when amphetamine or LiCl served as the US; (2) both backward and forward pairings produced suppression of saccharin solution intake regardless of whether amphetamine or LiCl was used as the US; and (3) combining amphetamine and LiCl did not diminish the suppression effect, as would be expected if they had opposing mechanisms for the effects; instead, an additive effect occurred. Taken together, these results suggest that the drug of abuse amphetamine and the emetic drug LiCl both possess aversive properties in the CTA paradigm. No rewarding effects of amphetamine were detected in our experimental data. In all, our results do not support the Grigson's reward comparison hypothesis (1997) and a new "task-dependent drug effects hypothesis" is proposed.

show abstract

“…Furthermore, this effect disappeared when subjects were deprived of fluid at the onset of conditioning (Lavin et al, 1980) and when a low intensity of the novel-tasting solution was used as the conditioned stimulus (CS) (Iraola & Alonso, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As Revusky et al (1982) noted, however, the poisoned-partner effect was smaller in magnitude than food aversion produced by poisoning itself. Furthermore, this effect disappeared when subjects were deprived of fluid at the onset of conditioning (Lavin et al, 1980) and when a low intensity of the novel-tasting solution was used as the conditioned stimulus (CS) (Iraola & Alonso, 1995).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

The effect of prior acquisition of food aversion on the poisoned‐partner effect

Hishimura

2001

Jpn Psychol Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It has been suggested that poisoned conspecifics function as aversive unconditioned stimuli for rats. The present study examined whether the prior acquisition of food aversion could enhance this effect. In phase 1, subjects were given pairings of cocoa‐flavored pellets and a toxin. In phase 2, they were given the cocoa‐flavored pellets and later presented with a poisoned or nonpoisoned conspecific. Subsequent testing involved a choice between the cocoa‐flavored pellets and regular pellets. Prior exposure to a poisoned conspecific prevented extinction of the conditioned aversion. In contrast, exposure to a nonpoisoned conspecific allowed extinction of the conditioned aversion. These findings suggest that a rat's reaction to a stressed conspecific is affected by their prior experience of aversive events.

show abstract

The Influence of Flavored Solution Concentration on the Poisoned-Partner Effect

Cited by 7 publications

References 0 publications

Stability and flexibility of the message carried by semiochemical stimuli, as revealed by devaluation of carbon disulfide followed by social transmission of food preference.

Stability and flexibility of the message carried by semiochemical stimuli, as revealed by devaluation of carbon disulfide followed by social transmission of food preference.

Re-examination of amphetamine-induced conditioned suppression of tastant intake in rats: The task-dependent drug effects hypothesis.

The effect of prior acquisition of food aversion on the poisoned‐partner effect

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About