Aversions to unflavored water and cup drinking produced by delayed sickness.

Revusky, Sam; Parker, Linda A.

doi:10.1037/0097-7403.2.4.342

Cited by 33 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In contrast to previous reports of failures to obtain evidence of conditioning when exteroceptive CSs are paired with interoceptive USs (Garcia & Koelling, 1966, 1967Garcia, McGowan, Ervin, & Koelling, 1968), more recent research has shown that relatively novel exteroceptive cues will acquire aversive properties when paired with an interoceptive US (Best, Best, & Mickley, 1973;Mitchell, Kirschbaum, & Perry, 1975;Revusky & Parker, 1976;Rozin, 1969, Experiment 3). However, the fact that exteroceptive cues have been found to acquire relatively little aversiveness if the CS-US interval is a matter of hours (Revusky & .Garcia, 1970;Revusky & Parker, 1976) or if the exteroceptive cue is presented in compound with a flavor cue (Best et al, 1973;Revusky & Parker, 1976) might be interpreted as providing support for a weak form of what Bitterman (1975Bitterman ( , 1976 has termed the "associative predisposition" hypothesis: although animals readily associate exteroceptive cues with an interoceptive US, they are even more prepared to associate interoceptive cues with an interoceptive US.…”

contrasting

confidence: 44%

“…However, the fact that exteroceptive cues have been found to acquire relatively little aversiveness if the CS-US interval is a matter of hours (Revusky & .Garcia, 1970;Revusky & Parker, 1976) or if the exteroceptive cue is presented in compound with a flavor cue (Best et al, 1973;Revusky & Parker, 1976) might be interpreted as providing support for a weak form of what Bitterman (1975Bitterman ( , 1976 has termed the "associative predisposition" hypothesis: although animals readily associate exteroceptive cues with an interoceptive US, they are even more prepared to associate interoceptive cues with an interoceptive US. But proponents of general-process learning theory (e.g., Krane & Wagner, 1975) might argue that such findings simply reflect differences in the qualitative properties of exteroceptive and interoceptive cues (e.g., differences in trace persistence, susceptibility to interference, relative novelty, etc.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Toxiphobia conditioning with exteroceptive cues

Krane

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The types of conditioned properties acquired by novel (i.e., nonpreexposedl or familiar (i.e., preexposedl exteroceptive cues that were paired with toxicosis, in the absence of a flavor CS, were evaluated in four experiments. In Experiment 1, the conditioned properties of novel exteroceptive cues served to block the acquisition of an aversion to a flavor CS during flavor conditioning and to suppress the ingestion response during flavor testing; animals failed to suppress their ingestion of either the flavor CS or a neutral flavor when tested in the absence of the exteroceptive CS, but suppressed their ingestion of both the flavor CS and the neutral flavor when tested in the presence of the exteroceptive CS. In Experiment 2, preexposed exteroceptive cues that had been paired with toxicosis failed to provide evidence of such conditioned properties. Experiment 3 demonstrated that preexposed contextual cues that were reinforced in compound with novel exteroceptive cues failed to acquire the conditioned properties acquired by nonpreexposed contextual cues under the same conditions of reinforcement. Finally, in Experiment 4, the conditioned properties of the novel exteroceptive cues served to evoke a conditioned gastrointestinal response that gradually extinguished as a function of repeated nonreinforced exposures to the exteroceptive cues, and, in the absence of such extinction, the conditioned properties served to block the acquisition of a flavor aversion.

show abstract

contrasting

confidence: 44%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Toxiphobia conditioning with exteroceptive cues

Krane

1980

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…However, this selective association of taste with toxicosis does not preclude the learning of aversions to other types of cues as well. Toxicosis-induced aversion learning in rats has been demonstrated with spatial, environmental cues (e.g., Krane, 1980), visual stimuli (Braveman, 1977;Galef & Osborne, 1978), olfactory stimuli (e.g., Rusiniak et al, 1979), the temperature of water (Nachman, 1970), cues of drinking from a cup (Revusky & Parker, 1976), and cues of drinking from spouts with large or small openings (Nachman, Rauschenberger, & Ashe, 1977).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…with taste stimuli can occur even if the toxicosis is delayed for an hour or more following exposure to the CS flavor (e.g., Revusky & Garcia, 1970). In the present study, independent groups of rats were injected with lithium 0, 30, 60, and 120 min after access to familiar food in novel metal sleeves.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Poison-avoidance learning to food-related tactile stimuli: Avoidance of texture cues by rats

Domjan

Hanlon

1982

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…For example, rats will learn to run at different speeds in a runway for different sucrose concentrations (e.g., see Collier & Marx, 1959;Flaherty, Riley, & Spear, 1973); bees demonstrate a variety of associative phenomena with exteroceptive stimuli paired with sucrose solutions (Bitterman, 1988;Couvillon & Bitterman, 1984); contextual stimuli may modulate conditioned taste aversions (e.g., see Revusky & Parker, 1976), although cues closely correlated with the taste substance, such as the bottle or nozzle, are apparently more potent than other apparatus-related stimuli (Archer, Sjoden, & Nilsson, 1985); and, in our own situation, context-taste associations are indicated by differential latencies to initiate licking as a function of sucrose or saccharin concentration differences (e.g., Czachowski, Weaver, & Flaherty, 1989;Flaherty & Grigson, 1988). Thus, even though rats may readily form associations between taste stimuli and contextual cues, these associations CONTEXT AND CONTRAST 275 are apparently not necessary for the comparison of reward value across different contexts.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Flaherty

Hrabinski

Grigson

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rats shifted from 32% sucrose to 4% sucrose lick less than rats that experience only the 4% solution. Previous experiments have found this negative contrast effect to be reduced ("disinhibited") by the addition of a novel tone in the postshift period. In Experiment 1 of this paper, the negative contrast effect was enhanced when a novel flavor was added to the sucrose solution in the postshift period. In Experiments 2-4, changes in the ambient context, even changes sufficient to produce disruptions in licking, did not alter the degree of negative contrast. These results suggest that (1) rats compare rewards across substantially different contexts, (2) contrast may serve to enhance taste neophobia, and (3) a disinhibitory effect may be confined to the presentation of punctate, nontaste, novel stimuli within a familiar context. Rats shifted from a 32 % to 4 % sucrose solution consume less of the 4% solution than do animals that experience only the latter solution. Such "negative contrast" effects are pervasive in consummatory behavior, but the extent to which negative contrast is confined to the context in which different rewards are received has been little investigated. One study, which was concerned with the role of inhibition in contrast, showed that the introduction of a novel stimulus (a loud tone) concomitant with the shift led to a reduced contrast effect, but only on the second and subsequent postshift days (Lombardi & Flaherty, 1978).Other studies, using different contrast procedures in which animals regularly experienced two different reinforcers, showed that changes in the environment in which the animals received the reinforcers had relatively little effect on contrast (Flaherty & Avdzej, 1976;Premack, 1969). Similarly, recent studies in traditional learning paradigms have indicated that changes in conditioning context have relatively little influence on responding to a previously reinforced signal, although responding to a nonreinforced signal may be substantially impaired by context shifts (Bouton, 1986, in press;Kaye, Preston, Szabo, Druiff, & Mackintosh, 1987;Lovibond, Preston, & Mackintosh, 1984).The consummatory contrastprocedure is different from these traditional conditioning studies in that there is no explicit signal for the sucrose solutions other than the context itself. Since the animals presumably must compare the postshift reward with the memory of the preshift reward in order to show a contrast effect (e.g., see Flaherty & Lombardi, 1977;Gonzalez, Fernhoff, & David, 1973; This research was supported by NIMH Grant MH-40489 and by a Charles and Johanna Busch Memorial grant. Comments made by the reviewers substantially enhanced the paper. Correspondence may be addressed to Charles Flaherty, Psychology Department, Busch Campus, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903. Spear, 1967), the degree to which this memory must be associated with the preshift context is of some interest. The literature mentioned above suggests that rewards are compared across substantially different contexts w...

show abstract

Aversions to unflavored water and cup drinking produced by delayed sickness.

Cited by 33 publications

References 22 publications

Toxiphobia conditioning with exteroceptive cues

Toxiphobia conditioning with exteroceptive cues

Poison-avoidance learning to food-related tactile stimuli: Avoidance of texture cues by rats

Effect of taste context and ambient context changes on successive negative contrast

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About