Attenuation of drug-induced bait shyness to a palatable solution as an increasing function of its availability prior to conditioning

Elkins, Ralph L.

doi:10.1016/s0091-6773(73)80156-7

Cited by 80 publications

(41 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Similarly, learned safety theory is compatible with the finding that familiarization with a taste both increases preference for the taste (i.e., attenuates neophobia) and impairs the conditioning of aversion to that taste (Nachman & Jones, 1974;Siegel, 1974). Further support for learned safety theory is provided by studies which show that the attenuation of aversion is positively related to the duration as well as the number of preexposure trials (Domjan, 1972;Elkins, 1973;Fenwick, Mikulka, & Klein, 1975). Thus, the greater the experience with the taste, the more it is classified as safe, or at least as one not followed by significant consequences (aversive or otherwise).…”

supporting

confidence: 56%

Effects of CS amount on conditioned taste aversion at different CS-US intervals

Deutsch

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Previous studies on the effect of CS amount/duration on the conditioning of taste aversion have reported that animals having greater contact with the CS acquire greater aversion. These findings appear to contradict studies of es preexposure, which show that greater contact with the CS results in less aversion. In the present research, the effect of CS amount was shown to depend on the CS-US interval. Thus, a 10-ml CS (0.15% saccharin) at 3-and 9-h CS-US intervals produced less aversion than a l-ml es, but there was no significant effect of CS amount at a 30-min interval. These results suggest a twoprocess interpretation of the delay gradient in conditioned taste aversion: one process (learned safety) is dominant at relatively long es-us intervals, and a different process becomesdominant at short intervals.

show abstract

supporting

confidence: 56%

Effects of CS amount on conditioned taste aversion at different CS-US intervals

Deutsch

1978

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This data parallels attenuation of conditioned response (CR) acquisition following conditioned stimulus (CS) pre-exposure for both conditioned taste aversion (Elkins, 1973) and classical conditioning (Lubow, 1973). More specifically, it parallels retarded acquisition of a CR following UCS habituation trials in a number of classical conditioning settings, e.g., Siegel and Domjan (1971), in addition to reduced resistance to extinction of a conditioned taste aversion following illness UCS habituation (Cannon et al, 1975;Elkins, 1974;leBlanc & Cappel, 1974).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 59%

Formation and retention of conditioned taste aversions and UCS habituation

Brookshire

Brackbill

1976

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In Experiment I rats received 10 consecutive daily injections of either apomorphine hydrochloride or NaCI followed by 4 days of saccharin solution exposure paired with apomorphine or NaCl injections. Relative consumption of saccharin solution and water during conditioning indicated that preconditioning apomorphine DCS habituation retarded acquisition of a conditioned saccharin aversion. In Experiment II rats received 6 days of saccharin solution ~xposure paired with injections of either apomorphine hydrochloride or NaCl, then 10 daily injections of either apomorphine hydrochloride or NaCl, followed by 4 days of saccharin preference testing (no drug injections). Post conditioning apomorphine DCS habituation did not interfere with retention of saccharin aversion acquired in initial conditioning phase. These results showed that novelty of DCS is crucial in acquisition of but not retention of conditioned taste aversions.For classical conditioning in general and conditioned taste aversion learning in particular, habituation to an unconditioned stimulus (UCS) prior to conditioning attenuates degree of conditioning expressed as either retarded acquisition or reduced resistance to extinction. For example, retarded acquisition of a conditioned response following preconditioning UCS habituation was found in human eyelid conditioning (MacDonald, 1946;Taylor, 1956), in rabbit nictitating membrane conditioning (Mis & Moore, 1973; Siegel & Domjan, 1971), and in conditioned suppression (Kremer, 1971; Siegel & Domjan, 1971). Rescorla (l973) reported reduced resistance to extinction and not retarded acquisition of conditioned suppression as a result of preconditioning noise UCS habituation. Regarding conditioned taste aversion learning, both retarded acquisition (Cannon, Berman, Baker, & Atkinson, 1975;leBlanc & Cappell, 1974) and reduced resistance to extinction (Elkins, 1974) have resulted from preconditioning ues habituation using ethanol, lithium chloride, cyclophosamide, morphine, or amphetamine as drug UCSs. Experiment I investigated acquisition of conditioned taste aversion as a function of preconditioning UCS habituation when an apomorphine hydrochloride ues was used. Attenuation of conditioning by DCS habituationis not limited to ues habituation done prior to conditioning, for ues habituation administered following conditioning has been found to reduce resistance to extinction of conditioned suppression in rats (Rescorla, 1973 of retention of a conditioned aversion following the same number of apomorphine ues habituation trials administered in Experiment I. EXPERIMENT IMethod Subjects. The subjects were 32 male Sprague-Dawley rats 49 days old at the beginning of the experiment, with a mean body weight of 205 g.Apparatus. Animals were housed in test boxes which had three adjacent holes, 65 mm apart, and clips for insertion of graduated Richter tubes. The saccharin solution contained 1 g of sodium saccharin in 1 liter of distilled water (.1 % sodium saccharin solution). The apomorphine hydrochloride injections consist...

show abstract

“…Experiment 2 examined whether the preexposure effects found in Experiment 1 could also be observed when longer intervals separated preexposure and conditioning. Experiment 2 also differed from Experiment 1 in that more preexposure trials were administered; this difference was introduced in an attempt to maximize preexposure effects (e.g., Elkins, 1973).…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of compound or element preexposure on compound flavor aversion conditioning

Holland

Forbes

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two experiments with rat subjects examined conditioning of an aversion to a compound flavor stimulus after preexposing the compound, its constituent elements, or no explicit flavor stimulus. Experiment 1 used a short-term procedure in which preexposure and conditioning treatments occurred on the same day; Experiment 2 used a long-term procedure in which more extensive preexposure was administered several days before conditioning. In both experiments, preexposure of the elements slowed conditioning to the compound more than did preexposure of the compound itself. These effects were apparently not mediated by changes in pseudoconditioned or neophobic responses. The results were related to Lubow's conditioned attention theory of stimulus preexposure effects.

show abstract

Attenuation of drug-induced bait shyness to a palatable solution as an increasing function of its availability prior to conditioning

Cited by 80 publications

References 12 publications

Effects of CS amount on conditioned taste aversion at different CS-US intervals

Effects of CS amount on conditioned taste aversion at different CS-US intervals

Formation and retention of conditioned taste aversions and UCS habituation

Effects of compound or element preexposure on compound flavor aversion conditioning

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About