Scaling relative incentive value in consummatory behavior

Papini, Mauricio R.; Pellegrini, Santiago

doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2006.01.001

Cited by 60 publications

(52 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

“…Moreover, ES-S showed a higher preshift to postshift DM intake decline relative to IS-S, and a lower mean DM intake of LQF during the postshift phase relative to ES-U and IS-S. These results suggest that subjects in ES perceived the hedonic difference between LQF and HQF to be much larger than subjects in IS did (Flaherty and Sepanak, 1978;Flaherty and Kaplan, 1979;Papini and Pellegrini, 2006), which is consistent with LQF having been devaluated in ES.On the basis of the well-established notion of incentive relativity (Flaherty, 1996), we believe that the devaluation of LQF may have resulted from its continuous comparisons with the highly preferred nutritional supplements fed during early experience. This type of comparison between foods of different quality is called 'simultaneous contrast', and has been argued to be particularly relevant for herbivores (Bergvall and Balogh, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 80%

“…A consummatory SNC effect is empirically represented by lower postshift consumption of the LQF in shift than in unshift subjects. The magnitude of the difference between preshift and postshift consumption is regarded as a measure of the perceived hedonic disparity between the HQF and the LQF (Flaherty and Sepanak, 1978;Papini and Pellegrini, 2006). In this study, we used the experienced sheep (ES; exposed to oat hay early in life) and inexperienced sheep (IS; not exposed to oat hay early in life) from our previous study (Catanese et al, 2010).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Devaluation of low-quality food during early experience by sheep

Catanese

Freidin

Cuello

et al. 2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A ruminant's early experience with low-quality food (LQF) is expected to increase its acceptance and preference in adulthood. Contrarily, we found that experienced sheep (ES) exposed to mature oat hay early in life ate less of this LQF than inexperienced sheep (IS). A possibility is that ES might have devaluated the LQF through continuous comparisons against high-quality food (HQF) supplements (sunflower meal and ground corn) that were simultaneously available during early experience. In this study, we tested the devaluation hypothesis with a successive negative contrast (SNC) procedure. In a consummatory SNC procedure, 'shift' subjects are unexpectedly changed from HQF to LQF, and their consumption is then compared against the consumption of 'unshift' subjects that receive LQF all throughout the SNC procedure. The magnitude of the difference in consumption between preshift and postshift is regarded as a measure of the degree to which both foods (HQF and LQF) are perceived to differ hedonically. When sheep from our previous study were 300 days old, both ES and IS were randomly assigned to either shift (ES-S and IS-S) or unshift conditions (ES-U and IS-U; n 5 6 in each group). Groups ES-S and IS-S were fed HQF (alfalfa hay) during the preshift phase, and then suddenly changed to LQF (oat hay) in the postshift phase. Groups ES-U and IS-U (controls) were fed only LQF throughout the SNC procedure. Subjects in ES-S showed a significantly lower intake of LQF than those in ES-U in the first postshift session (i.e. they showed an SNC effect), which was not observed in IS. These results agree with ES subjects having devalued LQF during early experience. We discuss the possibility that high levels of nutrient supplementation can result in devaluation of LQF (i.e. decrease in preference and acceptance), whereas restricted levels of supplementation may promote a positive experience with LQF.Keywords: early experience, food valuation, low-quality food, sheep, successive negative contrast ImplicationsEarly experience with specific foods can improve their acceptance and preference later in life. However, our past and present results with sheep suggest that mere exposure to foods in early life may not be sufficient to attain that outcome. Behaviour towards a food source and learning about its consequences depend not only on the food's intrinsic properties but also on the alimentary context in which it is presented. Current results can be interpreted as showing that the use of high levels of nutrient supplementation can cause a negative experience with LQF (i.e. a decrease in the preference and acceptance), whereas restricted levels of supplementation (a more typical scenario) may promote the opposite result (i.e. enhanced experience with LQF). IntroductionEarly food experience has the potential to increase food acceptance (voluntary intake of a given food) and preference (choices among food alternatives) in ruminants (Provenza and Balph, 1987;Distel and Provenza, 1991;Distel et al., 1994). Moreover, preference for low-quality f...

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 54%

mentioning

confidence: 80%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Devaluation of low-quality food during early experience by sheep

Catanese

Freidin

Cuello

et al. 2011

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Notice, however, that the two memories are theoretically established in rapid succession and without a clear boundary. After the organism detects a significant downshift (Papini and Pellegrini, 2006), the emotional response is recruited and egocentric memory is hypothesized to become encoded; but soon after, as it interacts with the new incentive conditions, the organism will automatically learn about them, thus encoding the allocentric memory. Whereas egocentric memory is hypothesized to promote withdrawal, rejection, and avoidance of the goal, thus extending the effects of reward loss, allocentric memory is hypothesized to promote approach to the goal, thus facilitating recovery from reward loss (Abler et al, 2005;Papini, 2003;.…”

Section: Memory Modulatorsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral neuroscience of psychological pain

Papini

Fuchs

Torres

2015

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…cSNC and iSNC differ in terms of at least the following factors: response (consummatory vs. anticipatory), reward (liquid vs. solid), context (conditioning box vs. runway), response topography (licking vs. running), number of trials per session (one vs. six), distribution of trials within a session (continuous vs. discrete), reward magnitude manipulation (solution concentration vs. pellet number), and spatial demands (localized vs. linear locomotion). cSNC and iSNC tasks also require the operation of different types of memory (Papini & Pellegrini, 2006;Pellegrini & Papini, 2007). The effects of the reward devaluation involve a failure of recognition memory (current sucrose concentration as different from the remembered one) in the consummatory task, whereas the instrumental effect depends on cued recall, that is, the ability to reactivate a memory of prior devaluation events as the animal approaches the goal.…”

Section: Transfer Effects In Rla-i Ratsmentioning

confidence: 99%