Taste reactivity responses elicited by reinforcing drugs: A dose-response analysis.

Parker, Linda A.

doi:10.1037/0735-7044.105.6.955

Cited by 72 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 48 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…According to Garcia et al's (1974;refined in Garcia, 1989) model, feedback from nausea produces conditioned disgust; therefore, a manipulation that produces nausea should establish conditioneddisgust reactions. However, taste avoidance produced by rewarding drugs is not accompanied by conditioned disgust (Parker, 1982(Parker, , 1988(Parker, , 1991(Parker, , 1993(Parker, , 1995, indicating that avoidance produced by rewarding drugs is not motivated by conditioned nausea.…”

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 90%

“…† Conflicting reports. 1993), LSD (Parker, 1996), methamphetamine (Cunningham & Noble, 1992;Parker, 1993), methylphenidate (Martin-Iverson, Ortmann, & Fibiger, 1985;Parker, 1991), morphine (Beach, 1957;Mucha et al, 1982;Parker, 1991), and alcohol to which the rats had been familiarized (Davies & Parker, 1990;Reid, Hunter, Beaman, & Hubbel, 1985). With each of these drugs, at doses that produce taste avoidance equivalent to that produced by lithium, none has been shown to produce rejection reactions in the TR test.…”

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Taste avoidance and taste aversion: Evidence for two different processes

Parker

2003

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

212

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The terms conditioned taste avoidance and conditioned taste aversion are often used interchangeably in the literature; however, considerable evidence indicates that they may represent different processes. Conditioned taste avoidance is measured by the amount that a rat consumes in a consumption test that includes both appetitive phases and consummatory phases of responding. However, conditioned taste aversion is more directly assessed with the taste reactivity test, which includes only the consummatory phase of responding. Rats display a conditioned taste aversion as conditioned rejection reactions (gapes, chin rubs, and paw treads) during an intraoral infusion of a nausea-paired flavored solution. Treatments that produce nausea are not necessary for the establishment of taste avoidance, but they are necessary for the establishment of taste aversion. Furthermore, treatments that alleviate nausea modulate neither the establishment nor the expression of taste avoidance, but they interfere with both the establishment and the expression of taste aversion. Considerable evidence exists indicating that these two measures are independent of one another. Taste avoidance may be motivated by conditioned fear rather than conditioned nausea, but taste aversion (as reflected by rejection reactions) may be motivated by conditioned nausea.

show abstract

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 90%

Section: Taste Avoidance Is Not Always Motivated By Taste Aversion Inmentioning

confidence: 91%

Taste avoidance and taste aversion: Evidence for two different processes

Parker

2003

Learning & Behavior

Self Cite

212

211

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While some have argued that aversions are based on sickness or a dysphoric effect of the drug (Riley & Tuck, 1985), others have noted that drug novelty or disruption of homeostasis mediates taste aversions (Gamzu, 1977;Hunt & Amit, 1987). Yet others have argued that aversions misrepresent the suppression of consumption evident in such designs and that taste avoidance better characterizes the suppression (Parker, 1988(Parker, , 1991(Parker, , 1995.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of morphine and amphetamine in individual subjects

Verendeev

Riley

2011

Learn Behav

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Drugs of abuse have been reported to produce both rewarding and aversive effects, as evidenced by their ability to induce both conditioned place preferences (CPPs) and conditioned taste aversions (CTAs), respectively. Although several attempts have been made to assess the relationship between the rewarding and aversive effects of drugs in independent groups, it is unknown to what extent (if any) preferences and aversions are related in individual animals. The present study assessed this relationship by examining the ability of morphine (5 and 10 mg/kg) and amphetamine (3 and 5 mg/kg) to induce both place preferences and taste aversions in the same animal, using a concurrent CTA/CPP design. There was no consistent relationship between the ability of morphine or amphetamine at either dose to increase time spent on the drug-paired side and the ability to suppress consumption of the drug-paired taste. These results support the position that drugs of abuse have multiple stimulus effects, both rewarding and aversive, that condition place preferences and taste aversions independently.

show abstract

“…Drug side was counterbalanced. The single-pairing design induces significant changes in place preference in rats using a variety of pharmacological agents (Parker 1991;Morse et al 2000;Belluzzi et al 2004). …”

Section: Conditioned Place Preferencementioning

confidence: 98%