Possible role of confounded taste stimuli in conditioned taste aversions

Holder, Mark D.

doi:10.3758/bf03209070

Cited by 14 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 28 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Archer and his associates used different bottles to present the different flavors in their different contexts; indeed, they suggested that the type of spout used to deliver the fluid was the most important aspect of each context. It has been suggested, however (Holder, 1988; but see also Sjoden & Archer, 1988), that the two types of bottle might have generated discriminably different tastes. To avoid any such possibility, we used identical bottles and spouts in our various contexts.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests

Bonardi

Honey

Hall

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In three experiments using rats as subjects, we investigated the degree to which a conditioned flavor aversion transfers from one context to another. Experiment 1, using a one-trial conditioning procedure, found no effect of a change of context on a conditioned aversion. Experiment 2 employed a multitrial procedure and demonstrated that a conditioned aversion was extinguished more rapidly after a change of context. Experiment 3 showed that context change decreased the effectiveness with which a conditioned flavor could block acquisition of an aversion by a second flavor. It is argued that these data cannot be explained in associative terms, and that they constitute evidence of conditionality in a simple aversive conditioning procedure.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Context specificity of conditioning in flavor-aversion learning: Extinction and blocking tests

Bonardi

Honey

Hall

1990

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In a comment that specifically addresses four of our studies Archer, Sjoden, Nilsson, & Carter, 1979;Sjoden & Archer, 1983), Holder (1988) has raised several objections to our conclusions that were based upon perceived problems with our experimental methodology. Since Holder's criticism is, if uncontested, potentially serious for the status of most of our research, we find it essential to deal with it at some length.…”

Section: Holder's Criticismmentioning

confidence: 96%

Exteroceptive cues in taste-aversion learning, no artifact: Reply to Holder

Sjödén

Archer

1988

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Holder (1988) has raised several objections to our work on the role of exteroceptive contextual stimuli in taste-aversion learning by rats. Our main conclusion from that work is that tonguetactile stimuli from the drinking spout constitute the likely basis for findings of contextual bottle control over learned taste aversions. Holder suggests that our results are confounded by taste cues from the fluid containers. We refute this suggestion by presenting data from two experiments showing contextual bottle control, even though potential taste cues from the drinking bottles were eliminated. We also point to the fact that some of Holder's criticisms are based on misreadings of our various reports.In a series of publications from our laboratory during the last 9 years, we have documented findings from a project concerned with the role of contextual stimuli in taste-aversion learning in rats ). Our general conclusion, summarized in a recent review paper , is that "a contextual compound stimulus consisting of botdes, compartments and an odor element was demonstrated to exert strong control over postconditioning saccharin intake" and that "the relative salience of the contextual elements was demonstrated to be in the order of bottles

show abstract

“…Interestingly, unrelated, but rather more controversial, issues were prevalent some 10 years ago in this field (e.g., Bitterman, 1976;Mitchell, 1977;Revusky, 1977Revusky, , 1978. For these efforts to correct possible artifacts, one can only acclaim Holder (1988aHolder ( , 1988b. Of course, we have tried to argue and present experimental evidence against his position, but in the final analysis, we express gratitude for his having instigated experiments that should probably have been performed a long time ago.…”

Section: Astra Lakemedel Ab Sodertalje Swedenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter studies were designed to test the influence of tongue-tactile (nozzle) cues on the taste-preexposure effect in aversion learning in the absence of possible confounding taste cues from the fluid containers. The results provided strong evidence in favor of our position that the plastic-taste confound postulated Reprintsmay be obtained from Per-Olow Sjiiden, Department of Clinical Psychology, UppsaIa University, Box 1225, S-75142 Uppsa1a, Sweden. by Holder (1988aHolder ( , 1988b) cannot explain our extinction and latent inhibition effects. This should be contrasted with the fact that Holder's argument is based on retrospective analyses of a few studies, which used dubious methodology.…”

Section: Astra Lakemedel Ab Sodertalje Swedenmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It may be that the field of context and learning is still at a stage of relative infancy, and that any stifling definition of central terms could well lead to a stunted growth of this fascinating topic. Holder (1988aHolder ( , 1988b has illuminated the potential risks involved in the methodology of taste-aversion experiments. Interestingly, unrelated, but rather more controversial, issues were prevalent some 10 years ago in this field (e.g., Bitterman, 1976;Mitchell, 1977;Revusky, 1977Revusky, , 1978.…”

Section: Astra Lakemedel Ab Sodertalje Swedenmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation