Conditioned aversion to saccharin by single administrations of mescaline and d-amphetamine

Cappell, Howard; LeBlanc, A. E.

doi:10.1007/bf00406873

Cited by 128 publications

(66 citation statements)

References 9 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Effective drugs include morphine [13][14][15], cocaine [16], amphetamine [17], ethanol, flurazepam, chlordiazepoxide [14, 18 , 19 ], nicotine [20], amobarbital and phenobarbital [19] and heroin [21]. Rats, then, avoid intake of a taste cue following pairings with not only LiCl, but also with all drugs of abuse tested, across a range of doses [22], when administered intraperitoneally (ip), subcutaneously (sc), intravenously (iv), and even, in some cases, when administered directly into the nucleus accumbens [17, 23 -26 ].…”

Section: The Model: Experimenter Delivered Drugmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

Grigson

2008

Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In the words of the late Charles Flaherty, reward comparison is commonplace. Rats and man, it appears, compare all rewards and this capacity likely contributes to our ability to select the most appropriate reward/behavior (food, water, salt, sex), at the most ideal level (e.g., a certain sweetness), at any given time. A second advantage of our predisposition for reward comparison is that the availability of rich alternative rewards can protect against our becoming addicted to any single reward/behavior. Thus, the potential protective effects of natural rewards/enrichment are addressed. Despite this, behavior can become inflexible when, through the development of addiction, stress, drug, or cues elicit craving, withdrawal, and ultimately, drug-seeking. Drug-seeking corresponds with a 'window of inopportunity', when even potent natural rewards have little or no impact on behavior. During this time, there is a unitary solution to the need state, and that solution is drug. The present animal model explores this 'window of inopportunity' when natural rewards are devalued and drug-seeking is engaged and considers a mode of possible intervention.

show abstract

Section: The Model: Experimenter Delivered Drugmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

Grigson

2008

Drug Discovery Today: Disease Models

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Subsequently, such aversions have been demonstrated with drugs that were reported to be self-administered (and thus classified as rewarding)-for example, alcohol (Lester, Nachman, & Le Magnen, 1970), amphetamine and mescaline (Cappell & LeBlanc, 1971), Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (Elsmore & Fletcher, 1972), morphine (Cappell, LeBlanc, & Endrenyi, 1973), methamphetamine (Martin & Ellinwood, 1973), and cocaine (Cappell & Le Blanc, 1975). The fact that drugs of abuse could also support taste aversion conditioning was at first considered to be paradoxical (Goudie, 1979; see also Hunt & Amit, 1987).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

A history of morphine-induced taste aversion learning fails to affect morphine-induced place preference conditioning in rats

King

Riley

2013

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drugs of abuse have both rewarding and aversive effects, as indexed by the fact that they support place preferences and taste aversions, respectively. In the present study, we explored whether having a history with the aversive effects of morphine (via taste aversion conditioning) impacted the subsequent rewarding effects of morphine, as measured in the place preference design. In Experiment 1, rats were exposed to a taste aversion procedure in which saccharin was followed by morphine. Place preference conditioning was then initiated in which animals were injected with morphine and placed on one side of a two-chambered apparatus. Animals with a taste aversion history acquired place preferences to the same degree as controls without such a history, suggesting that morphine's affective properties condition multiple effects, dependent on the specific stimuli present during conditioning. To determine whether these results were a reflection of processes operating in traditional associative conditioning, in a modified blocking procedure, place preference conditioning was attempted in the presence of a taste previously associated with morphine (Exp. 2). Under these conditions, animals still acquired morphine-induced place preferences comparable to those of animals without a morphine or conditioning history. These results are consistent with the position that drugs of abuse have multiple stimulus effects (positive and negative) that are differentially associated with specific stimuli (environmental and taste) that drive different behavioral responses (approach and avoidance).

show abstract

“…(2004 Estudios previos demostraron robustamente que la aversión condicionada es un procedimiento exitoso en el caso de soluciones endulzadas con sacarina, un endulzante artificial sin calorías (Capell y LeBlanc, 1971;García, Kimeldorf, y Koelling, 1955;Matthews, Gibson y Booth, 1985;Peck, 1975;Sjödén y Archer, 1977). No obstante, Booth (1991) comentó que el modelo de ingestión de sacarina no resulta un buen ejemplo para su utilización en el laboratorio, dado que los animales son expuestos a una "alimentación artificial" ante la disponibilidad de una solución que no contiene calorías ni nutrientes, por lo que el procedimiento del CAS lleva ventaja desde antes de comenzar cualquier manipulación.…”

Section: Referenciasunclassified

Differential effects of conditioned taste aversion on sucrose and stevia intake / Efectos diferenciales del condicionamiento aversivo a sabores sobre la ingesta de sacarosa y estevia

Moreno

López-Espinoza

Gómez

et al. 2018

Rev. Mex. Trast. Alim.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The association between a food stimulus and a feeling of discomfort produces a food aversion; this procedure is called aversive taste conditioning (ATC). Since there is no clear evidence about the effects of this procedure on the consumption of sweeteners, the purpose of this study was to examine the effectiveness of ATC to decrease the consumption of two natural sweeteners. Thirty Wistar rats were divided into three groups. In phase 1 all groups were exposed to free food access and each group to a different solution: water + sucrose (G1), water + stevia (G2) and unsweetened water (CG). In phase 2 the experimental groups received an intraperitoneal injection of lithium chloride. In phase 3 the groups returned to the conditions of the first phase. After the ATC, the G1 and G2 significantly decreased their beverage consumption, although it was higher than the consumption of CG. The results are discussed in terms of the association between flavor and energy content, which allows establishing new guidelines in the study of the consumption of sweeteners. It is concluded that procedures such as ATC are effective in the control of some disordered eating behaviors.

show abstract

Conditioned aversion to saccharin by single administrations of mescaline and d-amphetamine

Cited by 128 publications

References 9 publications

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

Reward comparison: the Achilles’ heel and hope for addiction

A history of morphine-induced taste aversion learning fails to affect morphine-induced place preference conditioning in rats

Differential effects of conditioned taste aversion on sucrose and stevia intake / Efectos diferenciales del condicionamiento aversivo a sabores sobre la ingesta de sacarosa y estevia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About