2008
DOI: 10.1037/a0013968
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The state of the reward comparison hypothesis: Theoretical comment on Huang and Hsiao (2008).

Abstract: Rats avoid intake of a gustatory cue following pairings with a drug of abuse, such as morphine or cocaine. Despite the well-established rewarding properties of these drugs, the reduction in intake of the taste cue has been interpreted as a conditioned taste aversion for decades. In 1997, I proposed the reward comparison hypothesis suggesting that rats avoided intake of the drug-associated taste cue because the value of the taste cue pales in comparison to the highly rewarding drug of abuse expected in the near… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
4
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2010
2010
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 11 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 94 publications
(125 reference statements)
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…For example, rats have been shown to avoid saccharin solution if it is provided immediately before SA (Wheeler et al, 2008;Wise et al, 1976). Although continued SA demonstrated the rewarding effects, the avoidance of saccharin intake suggested that aversive effects were induced (for an alternative interpretation, see Grigson, 2008). We found that rats avoided the OG cue when it was paired with nicotine (15 or 30 mg/kg, Figures 1b and c), although the OG cue was appetitive to rats receiving i.v.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…For example, rats have been shown to avoid saccharin solution if it is provided immediately before SA (Wheeler et al, 2008;Wise et al, 1976). Although continued SA demonstrated the rewarding effects, the avoidance of saccharin intake suggested that aversive effects were induced (for an alternative interpretation, see Grigson, 2008). We found that rats avoided the OG cue when it was paired with nicotine (15 or 30 mg/kg, Figures 1b and c), although the OG cue was appetitive to rats receiving i.v.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 71%
“…Thus, while we have reported that drugs of abuse can devalue natural rewards, we also have argued that natural rewards (specifically sensitivity to natural rewards) can protect against responding for drug [61], (see Grigson, 2008 for a discussion) [62, 63]. In accordance, there is evidence that the availability of alternative natural rewards can facilitate abstinence in the addicted human [6466] and can reduce acquisition of drug-taking behavior in rats [64, 6770].…”
Section: 4 Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Some argue that CTA to addictive drugs is a manifestation of rewarding effects, not aversive effects (Gomez, 2002; Grigson, 2008; Grigson and Freet, 2000; Grigson and Twining, 2002; Liu et al., 2009; Parker, 1995; Parker and Gillies, 1995). These authors suggest that the avoidance of sweet‐flavored solution after pairing with an addictive drug is a result of anticipatory avoidance: The rats avoid drinking sweet‐flavored solution because they know that it will soon be followed by a “better” reward, the addictive drug.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%