Search

After two neutral stimuli have been paired (AB), directly conditioning a response to one of them (A) will also be reflected in a change in responding to the other (B). Standard accounts of this sensory preconditioning effect assume that it is mediated by a memory involving the stimulus that was directly conditioned (i.e., A). The reliance on this shared pathway implies that sensory preconditioning (involving B) and direct conditioning (involving A) should support qualitatively similar patterns of responding. In three experiments, directly pairing A with lithium chloride (LiCl) delivery resulted in both a reduction in consumption of A (i.e., avoidance) and a reduction in the size of licking clusters it elicits (i.e., aversion). In contrast, the sensory preconditioning effect resulted in a reduction in the consumption of B but no change in the nature of the licking response that it elicited; and a similar dissociation was observed after trace conditioning. These dissociations involving direct conditioning and sensory preconditioning, observed over a range of flavor concentrations and different doses of LiCl, undermine standard accounts of sensory preconditioning that are based on the assumption of stimulus substitution., ((PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved).)

Four experiments showed that the preference normally established to a neutral flavor cue that was paired with maltodextrin was attenuated when that cue was conditioned in compound with another flavor--overshadowing. Furthermore, two experiments showed that the preference for a neutral flavor conditioned as part of a compound was further attenuated if the other element in that compound was separately paired with the reinforcer--blocking. These results stand in contrast to a number of previous compound flavor preference conditioning experiments, which have not revealed reliable cue competition effects. These discrepant findings are discussed in terms of the effects of within-compound associations and a configural perspective on potentiation. Modeling of this configural perspective predicts that a compound of two separately trained cues will elicit a similar response to the individual cues themselves--absence of summation. Two experiments confirmed this prediction.

Food-deprived rats learned to avoid a flavor negatively correlated with access to a rich nutrient, 20% maltodextrin (20M) solution. This avoidance in two-bottle choice tests was produced by training consisting of either an unpaired condition where sessions of unflavored 20M were intermixed with sessions of 2 or 3% maltodextrin (2M or 3M) flavored with salt (Experiment 1) or almond (Experiments 3 and 4) or a differential conditioning procedure where one flavor was mixed with 20M and another with 2M (Experiment 2). Avoidance was counter-conditioned by mixing the target flavor with 20M (Experiment 1), generalized to a neutral context (Experiment 3), and displayed strong resistance to extinction (Experiment 4). The results demonstrated that food avoidance learning can occur in the absence of an aversive unconditioned stimulus and indicated that unpaired control groups and differential conditioning procedures may be misleading in flavor preference learning research when further control conditions are absent.

In 2 experiments, rats received flavor-aversion conditioning with two flavors, B and C, to which they had been preexposed. In both experiments, C was preexposed in compound with another flavor in a block of CX trials. In Experiment 1, B was presented in compound with Y, and BY trials were alternated with presentations of Y alone. In Experiment 2, B was presented in compound with X, and BX trials were alternated with presentations of X alone. No difference was detected in Experiment 1 between B and C in the ease with which they conditioned, but in Experiment 2 it was found that B conditioned more readily than C. This latter result is consistent with the hypothesis that experience with the associate of a target stimulus can act to maintain the effective salience of that stimulus; however, the results of Experiment 1 challenge this interpretation or indicate the operation of other factors that limit the effectiveness of this salience modulation process., (Copyright (c) 2009 APA, all rights reserved.)

Experiments with different temporal relations between the conditioned stimulus (CS) and the unconditioned stimulus (US) in conditioning assessed whether US devaluation effects can be obtained after nutrient-conditioned flavor preference learning. One flavor (CScarb) was paired with a carbohydrate, Polycose; a 2nd flavor (CSprot) was paired with a protein, casein; and a 3rd flavor (CS-) was presented by itself. Following conditioning, one of the nutrients was devalued through pairings with lithium chloride in the absence of the CS flavors. In a subsequent 2-bottle test, rats preferred CScarb over CSprot; however, this preference was smaller when the carbohydrate was devalued than when the protein was devalued. Results suggest that CS flavors are able to form associations with the sensory features of nutrient USs under a wide variety of circumstances.

Rats exposed to simultaneous compounds of 1 neutral flavor with dilute (2%) sucrose and a 2nd flavor with dilute (2%) maltodextrin subsequently consumed both flavors in preference to a 3rd flavor that was never paired with a palatable taste. Brief training exposure under ad lib food and water minimized the post-ingestive effects of nutrients, emphasizing the contribution of palatability to these preferences. Devaluation of sucrose or maltodextrin by pairing with illness (Experiment 1) or sensory-specific satiety (Experiment 2) selectively reduced the preference for the flavor previously paired with the devalued reinforcer. Such reinforcer-specific devaluation effects suggest that palatability-based learned flavor preferences are under-pinned by a Pavlovian process whereby the cue flavor is associated with the taste of the concurrently consumed palatable reinforcer.

Forward and backward blocking of taste preference learning was compared in rats. In the forward condition, thirsty rats were exposed to a flavor (A) in sucrose solution (+) or in water (-), after which they were exposed to A in compound with another flavor (B) in sucrose solution (i.e., AB+). In the backward condition, these phases were reversed. Consumption of B alone was assessed when rats were food deprived. In the forward condition, rats given A+ consumed less B than rats given A-, providing evidence of forward blocking, whereas in the backward condition, rats given A+ drank more of B than those given A-. Subsequent experiments found that alternating but not blocked preexposure to A and B, when given prior to training, produced blocking of B whether A+ was given before or after AB+, suggesting that prior failures to observe backward blocking reflect failures of discrimination., (Copyright 2005 APA, all rights reserved).)

In 2 experiments, rats received flavor-aversion conditioning in which the unconditioned stimulus (US) was an orally consumed solution of lithium chloride (LiCl). The resulting aversion was not attenuated by giving preexposure to injections of LiCl, although such preexposure did attenuate aversions established using injected LiCl as the US (Experiment 1). This outcome suggests that blocking by injection-related cues is responsible for the US-preexposure effect observed in this situation. Experiment 2 confirmed this interpretation by showing that presenting such cues (by giving an injection of saline) at the time that the LiCl was drunk resulted in an attenuation of conditioning in animals preexposed to injections of LiCl. The US-preexposure effect obtained in these experiments can be explained solely in terms of blocking by injection cues, although other mechanisms may contribute to the effect seen in other flavor-aversion paradigms.