AI helps you reading Science

AI generates interpretation videos

AI extracts and analyses the key points of the paper to generate videos automatically


pub
Go Generating

AI Traceability

AI parses the academic lineage of this thesis


Master Reading Tree
Generate MRT

AI Insight

AI extracts a summary of this paper


Weibo:
Over the past few years, we have reported the results from a number of flavor aversion studies with the A1/ AX1 or forward blocking procedure

Effects of postconditioning inflation on odor + taste compound conditioning

Animal Learning & Behavior, no. 2 (2003): 173-184

Cited: 10|Views13
WOS

Abstract

The within-compound association approach has been proposed as an account of synergistic conditioning in flavor aversion learning. One prediction from the within-compound association approach is that following taste + odor compound conditioning, postconditioning inflation of one element of the compound should increase responding to the s...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • Flavor aversion learning is an adaptive form of classical conditioning in which a flavorful conditioned stimulus is paired with an illness-inducing unconditioned stimulus (US), such as the emetic lithium chloride.
  • Compound conditioning of a strong taste and a weak odor followed by illness produces a significantly stronger aversion to the weak odor, as compared with rats that had only odor-alone conditioning.
  • This effect has been termed potentiation(e.g., Rusiniak, Hankins, Garcia, & Brett, 1979).
  • Some experiments have shown that extinction decreases the odor aversion (e.g., Durlach & Rescorla, 1980), supporting the within-compound approach, whereas other experiments have found no decrements in the strength of the odor aversion (e.g., Lett, 1984), supporting the sensory-and-gate-channeling approach
Highlights
  • Flavor aversion learning is an adaptive form of classical conditioning in which a flavorful conditioned stimulus is paired with an illness-inducing unconditioned stimulus (US), such as the emetic lithium chloride
  • Four groups were employed in this experiment: Group DEN1 received denatonium saccharide solution (DEN)-alone conditioning, Group AX1 received compound DEN 1 odor conditioning,Group AX1/A1 received compound DEN 1 odor conditioning followed by one odor inflation trial, Group AX1/B1 received compound DEN 1 odor conditioning followed by inflation of a different odor
  • Using tastes and odors in four flavor aversion experiments, we demonstrated that an inflation manipulation, AX1/A1 conditioning, produces significantly stronger respondingto X than does AX1 conditioning.Notably, this effect occurred for odors and taste cues: Postconditioning inflation of the taste element increased responding to the odor (Experiments 1 and 2), and postconditioning inflation of the odor element increased responding to the taste (Experiments 3 and 4)
  • The demonstration in Experiments 2 and 4 that AX1/A1 conditioningproduced significantly stronger responding to X than did AX1/B1 conditioning confirms that the inflation effect was highly specific
  • Westbrook et al found increased responding to X with the AX1/A1 design only when the US intensity was stronger in the A1 phase than in the AX1 phase
  • The results of the present experiments are at odds with those reported by Westbrook et al Currently, it is not clear which procedural manipulation is responsible for the different pattern of results, but there are two procedural differences that likely played a role
Results
  • The rats drank similar amounts of fluid during Phase 1 conditioning.Group AX1/A1 drank 3.7 ml (DEN 1 AL), Group A1/AX1 drank 3.5 ml (AL), Group AX1 drank 4.0 ml (DEN 1 AL) or 4.2 ml (H2O), and Group A1/X1 drank 3.9 ml (DEN) or 3.1 ml (AL).
  • It can be seen that Groups AX1 and A1/X1 drank larger amounts and Groups A1/AX1 and AX1/A1 drank much less DEN across testing.
  • DO1/A1 DEN 1 ORG–LiCl AL–LiCl AX1 DEN1 DA1 DO1 DEN1
Conclusion
  • Using tastes and odors in four flavor aversion experiments, the authors demonstrated that an inflation manipulation, AX1/A1 conditioning, produces significantly stronger respondingto X than does AX1 conditioning.Notably, this effect occurred for odors and taste cues: Postconditioning inflation of the taste element increased responding to the odor (Experiments 1 and 2), and postconditioning inflation of the odor element increased responding to the taste (Experiments 3 and 4).
  • The demonstration in Experiments 2 and 4 that AX1/A1 conditioningproduced significantly stronger responding to X than did AX1/B1 conditioning confirms that the inflation effect was highly specific.
  • Westbrook et al used a eucalyptus odor along with quinine and hydrochloric solution tastes, and the authors used an almond odor mixed with denatonium or saccharin
  • It has been suggested by LoLordo and Droungas (1989) that the flavors used by Westbrook et al may have favored generalizationand, produced the nonspecificity of the inflation effect in their experiments.
  • Experiment 3 of Westbrook et al.) and that postconditioningtaste extinction had a nonspecific effect on the potentiated odor aversion [i.e., the potentiated odor aversion was attenuated by extinction of the taste element of the compound (AX1/A2) or by extinction of a novel taste (AX1/B2)]
Tables
  • Table1: Design of Experiment 1
  • Table2: Design of Experiment 2
  • Table3: Design of Experiment 3
  • Table4: Design of Experiment 4
Download tables as Excel
Study subjects and analysis
rats: 11
The rats were matched to four groups on the basis of their mean H2O intake for a 7-day period before Phase 1 conditioning. There were 11 rats in Group AX1/A1 and 10 rats in each of the other three groups, and the group water consumption means ranged from 19.3 to 19.9 ml. All the procedures occurred at 1000 h and were performed in the familiar home cage to minimize any effects of context blocking

rats: 40
Table 2 displays the groups of Experiment 2. The 40 rats were matched to one of four groups (n 5 10) on the basis of their mean water intakes for a 7-day period prior to conditioning. Group means ranged from 19.1 to 19.2 ml

rats: 10
Also, half of Group A1/X1 received the AL– LiCl pairing followed by a DEN–LiCl pairing, whereas the other half received the DEN–LiCl pairing before the AL–LiCl pairing. There were 10 rats in Groups AX1/A1 and A1/AX1 and 8 rats in Groups AX1 and A1/X1. The experimental procedures were similar to those described in Experiment 1

Reference
  • Batsell, W. R., Jr., & Batson, J. D. (1999). Augmentation of taste conditioning by a preconditioned odor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 374-388.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Batsell, W. R., Jr., & Best, M. R. (1993). One bottle too many? Method of testing determines the detection of overshadowing and retention of taste aversions. Animal Learning & Behavior, 21, 154-158.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • (2001). Taste preconditioningaugments odor-aversion learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 27, 3047.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Batson, J. D., & Batsell, W. R., Jr. (2000). Augmentation, not blocking, in an A1/AX1 flavor-conditioningprocedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 7, 466-471.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Batson, J. D., & Batsell, W. R., Jr. (2001, March). Order of conditioning sequences determines potentiation. Paper presented at the 8th Annual Meeting, The International Conference of Comparative Cognition, Melbourne, FL. Best, M. R., & Domjan, M. (1979). Characteristics of the lithiummediated proximal US-preexposure effect in flavor-aversion conditioning. Animal Learning & Behavior, 7, 433-440.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • (1986). Potentiation and overshadowing in odor-aversion learning: Role of method of odor presentation, the distal–proximal cue distinction, and the conditionability of odor. Learning & Motivation, 17, 115-138.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Domjan, M., & Best, M. R. (1977). Paradoxical effects of proximal unconditioned stimulus preexposure: Interference with and conditioning of a taste aversion. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 310-321.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Durlach, P. J., & Rescorla, R. A. (1980). Potentiation rather than overshadowing in flavor-aversion learning: An analysis in terms of within-compound associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 175-187.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • (1985). A general theory of aversion learning. In N. S. Braveman &
    Google ScholarFindings
  • P. Bronstein (Eds.), Experimental assessments and clinical applications of conditioned food aversions (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 443, pp. 8-21). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Holland, P. C. (1981). Acquisition of representation-mediated conditioned food aversions. Learning & Motivation, 12, 1-18.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lett, B. T. (1984). Extinction of taste aversion does not eliminate taste potentiation of odor aversion in rats or color aversion in pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 12, 414-420.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • LoLordo, V. M., & Droungas, A. (1989). Selective associations and adaptive specializations: Taste aversions and phobias. In S. B. Klein & R. Mowrer (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Instrumental conditioningtheory and the impact of biologicalconstraints on learning (pp. 145-179). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Mackintosh, N. J. (1976). Overshadowing and stimulus intensity. Animal Learning & Behavior, 4, 186-192.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Pavlov, I. P. (1927). Conditioned reflexes (G. V. Anrep, Trans.). London: Oxford University Press.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditionedbut not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory ( pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rusiniak, K. W., Hankins, W. G., Garcia, J., & Brett, L. P. (1979). Flavor–illness aversions: Potentiation of odor by taste in rats. Behavioral & Neural Biology, 25, 1-17.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Slotnick, B. M., Westbrook, F., & Darling, F. M. C. (1997). What the rat’s nose tells the rat’s mouth: Long delay aversion conditioning with aqueous odors and potentiation of taste by odors. Animal Learning & Behavior, 25, 357-369.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Westbrook, R. F., Homewood, J., Horn, K., & Clarke, J. C. (1983). Flavour–odour compound conditioning: Odour-potentiation and flavour-attenuation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35B, 13-33. (Manuscript received July 22, 2002; revision accepted for publication December 16, 2002.)
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
0
Your rating :

No Ratings

Tags
Comments
数据免责声明
页面数据均来自互联网公开来源、合作出版商和通过AI技术自动分析结果,我们不对页面数据的有效性、准确性、正确性、可靠性、完整性和及时性做出任何承诺和保证。若有疑问,可以通过电子邮件方式联系我们:report@aminer.cn