Are there constraints on learned responses to odors from rewarded and nonrewarded rats?

Eslinger, Paul J.; Ludvigson, H. Wayne

doi:10.3758/bf03199633

Cited by 11 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Since the present interest was in detecting odor differences, the common practice of making no attempt to separate the two reactions was followed. It may be noted, however, that the unlearned reaction is weak and usually short lived (e.g., Ludvigson, McNeese, & Collerain, 1979), and can be counteracted by learned reactions (Eslinger & Ludvigson, 1980). "Patterned responding" of the type exemplified here almost certainly reflects a learned reaction almost exclusively.…”

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Different odors in rats from large and small rewards

Ludvigson

Mathis

Choquette

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Although rats emit different odors in a goalbox upon receipt of unsignaled reward and nonreward, recent studies have failed to find odor differences from unsignaled large and small reward, apparently disconfirming the generalization that frustration-producing manipulations lead to a distinctive emission. Experiment 1 tested the hypothesis that providing discriminative runway signals, permitting subjects to anticipate the large and small rewards, would lead to different odor emissions. Results supported the hypothesis: donor rats emitted odors sufficiently different to provide cues for differential responding in test subjects. However, an attempt to replicate the recent observations on unsignaled rewards suggested that these, too, occasioned goalbox emissions. Therefore, Experiment 2 again gave donors unsignaled large and small reward, but increased the incentive for discrimination in test rats. Test subjects readily discriminated, confirming the conclusion that large and small rewards occasion different emissions even without discriminative signals and supporting a frustration-odor interpretation.Although many studies have found that laboratory rats excrete different odors upon receipt of unsignaled reward and nonreward on a partial reinforcement schedule (e.g.,

show abstract

Section: Notesmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…A 2.13-m alleyway, fully described in Eslinger and Ludvigson (1980), was used. Stainless steel inserts lined the goalbox walls and floor; white paper flooring covered all sections.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Different odors in rats from large and small rewards

Ludvigson

Mathis

Choquette

1985

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…With this interpretation, Nand R odors are innately tied only weakly to specific events or classes of events, and either odor can be associated with either congruent or incongruent events with little difficulty. Experiments on constraints on association due to innate meaning of these odors have found constraints to be weak and short-lived (Eslinger & Ludvigson, 1980;Travis-Neideffer, 1981). In fact, these studies have shown that after Rand N odors have func-tioned as discriminative stimuli for either congruent or incongruent goal events (with the initial congruent association the easier), the discriminations are readily reversible.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As a tactic of experimental efficiency, most studies have demonstrated discrimination by having odor arising from N (N odor) signal nonreward and odor arising from R (R odor) signal reward. Eslinger and Ludvigson (1980) found that when odors were paired with "opposite," or incongruent, goal events the discriminative reaction was slightly delayed and somewhat smaller. Apparently, some natural predisposition retards the association of N odor with R consequences, and/or R odor with N consequences.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Aversive conditioning of naturally produced reward and nonreward odors in rats

Batsell

Ludvigson

1989

Animal Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past experiments have reported that rats encountering reward (R) or nonreward (N) goal events emit odors that can be utilized as discriminative stimuli for instrumental behavior by conspecifics. In the present study, thirsty male rats were aversively conditioned by ingestional toxicosis to Rand N odors, and their suppression of water consumption in the presence of these odors was measured. Thirsty trained donors were placed into chambers containing R or N goal events to generate, respectively, the R or N odors. Test animals were given eight differential conditioning trials (four with one odor as CS+; four with the other as CS-), involving placement into an odorcontaining chamber with water available, followed by a LiCl injection on CS+ trials. Animals tested in their CS+ odor consumed significantly less water than did CS-and control subjects. Both Rand N odors were conditioned by aversive means and readily discriminable from each other. This represents the first laboratory demonstration of aversive conditioning of such naturally produced odors, and it suggests that aversive conditioning may be useful in the study of odorous emissions generally. Implications for innate meanings of Rand N odors are discussed.

show abstract

“…The apparatus was a single straight alleyway, which has been fully described elsewhere (Eslinger & Ludvigson, 1980). A series of photocells located .15, 1.36, and 1.66 m beyond the start door allowed for the automatic recording of start, run, and goal traversal times.…”

Section: Apparatusmentioning

confidence: 99%