Spatial contiguity, not cue-to-consequence, is the issue in taste-potentiated noise-illness associations: Comment on Holder, Bermudez-Rattoni, and Garcia (1988).

Abstract

Holder, Bermudez-Rattoni, and Garcia (1988) allege to have failed to corroborate findings from our laboratory (Ellins, Cramer, & Whitmore, 1985; Ellins & von Kluge, 1987) that taste-potentiated noise-illness associations can be established under conditions of spatial contiguity. We maintain that Holder et al. have provided additional experimental support for our contention that spatial contiguity is an important factor in the taste-potentiation of nongustatory stimuli. In addition, we take issue with their conclusion that the results of our research are incompatible with the conditioning principle of cue-to-consequence.

The conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus-feedback feeding sequence: Reply to Ellins, von Kluge, and Cramer (1990).

“…However, these aversions are apparently less readily established than taste-potentiated odor aversions suggesting that all exteroceptive stimuli are not equally well potentiated by taste (Holder et al, 1988). Despite the claims of Ellins, von Kluge, and Cramer (1990), we replicated their findings and see no inconsistency between our findings and theirs. Both sets of results are explained by a common theory of conditioning (Garcia, 1989; Garcia & Holder, 1985).…”

“…Despite their emphasis of spatial contiguity in their comment on our study (Ellins, von Kluge, & Cramer, 1990), in their recent empirical work they stated that spatial contiguity is not the answer (von Kluge . They obtained equivalent taste-potentiated noise-illness aversions whether the noise came from "displaced locations" or "up through the food" (von Kluge .…”