Anticipation of incentive gain

Abstract

In four experiments, the once daily availability of saccharin (.15%) preceded the availability of sucrose (32% or 2%). Experiment 1 showed that the intake of saccharin was reduced when it preceded 32% sucrose but not when it preceded 2% sucrose, as compared with saccharin-alone conditions. Experiment 2 showed that less saccharin was consumed when the saccharin preceded sucrose by 5 min than when there was a 30-min intersolution interval. Experiment 3 replicated this finding and showed that the presentation of the two solutions through the same or different access holes in the apparatus was not relevant to the result. Experiment 4 showed that there was an inverse relationship between saccharin intake and the length of the intersolution interval in the range of 1 to 30 min. These data were interpreted to indicate that the animals learn the predictive relationship between the saccharin and sucrose solutions and that the intake of the saccharin is reduced by an anticipatory contrast mechanism-a mechanism that may have restricted temporal parameters.The juxtaposition of sucrose solutions of high and low concentration leads to a reduced intake of the solution of lower concentration compared with conditions in which only the lower concentration is experienced. This diminished intake occurs when the lower concentration is presented after the animal has had extended or minimal experience with the higher concentration (Flaherty, Ciszewski, & Kaplan, 1979; Flaherty, Troncoso, & Deschu, 1980;Vogel, Mikulka, & Spear, 1968), as well as when the two solutions are repeatedly alternated in availability (Flaherty & Largen, 1975;Flaherty & Sepanak, 1978).The diminished intake is termed a negative contrast effect-successive negative contrast when the lower concentration is presented after some experience with the higher concentration, and simultaneous negative contrast when the two solutions are repeatedly juxtaposed. There is some evidence that these two types of contrast may be controlled by somewhat different mechanisms (e.g., Flaherty, Lombardi, Wrightson, & Deptula, 1980).Recently we have found indications of another type of contrast, anticipatory contrast (Flaherty & Checke, Note 1). In the course of a study investigating possible conditioning of the glucoregulatory system with saccharin as a CS and sucrose as aVeS, we saw some evidence that the intake of saccharin was reduced when it served as a predictor of sucrose. The studies described in this paper explored this phenomenon. EXPERIMENT 1The purpose of the first experiment was to determine whether the presentation of a sucrose solution 5 min after the daily availability of a .J5070 saccharin solution would lower the intake of saccharin. A second purpose was to determine whether the concentration of the sucrose solution was important in determining the degree of suppression of saccharin.The basic procedure in this experiment, as well as in most of the other experiments in this paper, was as follows. A tube containing a .15% saccharin solution was made available for a 3-mi...

Opioid-Dependent Anticipatory Negative Contrast and Binge-Like Eating in Rats with Limited Access to Highly Preferred Food

“…Studies were not designed to distinguish the mechanisms responsible for reductions in home-cage or predeprivation chow intake. However, several findings support the interpretation that chow hypophagia at the first feeder was a form of anticipatory negative contrast (Flaherty and Checke, 1982;Flaherty and Rowan, 1986;Flaherty et al, 1995) and not energy homeostatic compensation for accruing weight gain, lasting satiety, or successive negative contrast. First, there was no concurrent or prospective relation between differences in weight gain and the magnitude of chow hypophagia (unlike strong individual differences seen in chow hypophagia).…”

“…Such a learned change in food acceptance may increase risk for body weight dysregulation and eating disorders because of the increased role placed on sensoryhedonic, rather than nutritional, properties of food for controlling intake (Wardle et al, 2001). Perhaps an analog of this learned change in food acceptance, negative contrast in rodents refers to the hypophagia of an otherwise acceptable tastant that results from having predictably received access to a more preferred substance either immediately before (successive negative contrast) or subsequent to (anticipatory negative contrast) that substance (Flaherty and Checke, 1982;Flaherty and Rowan, 1986;Flaherty et al, 1995). Contrast effects have been studied previously using limitedly available (3-5 min) sweet solutions in weight-restricted rats, but have not yet been well-studied vis-à-vis day-to-day food acceptance/intake in subjects' self-determining body weight.…”

Component transition and anticipatory contrast

“…Several studies, using both response-dependent (Williams, 1976a(Williams, , 1979(Williams, , 1981Williams & Wixted, 1986;Wilton & Gay, 1969) and response-independent (Farley , 1980; Williams, 1976b) schedules have demonstrated that a major portion of the contrast effect in a multiple schedule is produced by variation in the reinforcement rate following a target component. Moreover, other investigators , using procedures very different from free-operant multiple schedules, have obtained similar results (Bacotti, 1976;Flaherty & Checke, 1982;Flaherty & Rowan , 1985. A critical issue raised by these findings is the mechanism producing such a contrast effect.…”

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

“…While it is the case that rats clearly avoid intake of a taste cue when paired with a putatively aversive US, such as LiCl, for example, in 1982 Flaherty and Checke [37] reported that rats also avoid intake of a saccharin CS when paired, in once daily sessions, with a highly preferred 32% sucrose solution. This phenomenon was referred to as an anticipatory contrast effect because reduced intake of the saccharin cue was thought to be due to anticipation of the availability of the preferred sucrose reward in the very near future.…”