Thirsty rats do prefer sucrose solutions

1977

Highly and moderately water-deprived animals (23.5 hand 18 h, respectively) were exposed to 8% sucrose and water or 20% sucrose and water at fixed positions in a two-choice discrimination apparatus. Half the animals in each group received a series of alternating free-and forced-choice trials. The other animals received a series of forced-choice trials prior to a free-choice preference test. A retesting procedure was carried out in which deprivation levels were switched for all animals. Neither mode of training, exposure to incentive, nor concentration of sucrose reliably affected incentive preference. Deprivation level, however, was related to incentive preference. Only animals that were initially moderately deprived developed reliable and consistent preferences to sucrose. Highly deprived animals also developed reliable sucrose preferences after being switched to moderate water deprivation during retesting.Beck and Bidwell (1974) exposed highly waterdeprived (23.5 h) and nondeprived rats to sucrose (8%) and water at fixed positions for a lengthy series of alternating free-and forced-choice trials. Nondeprived animals developed high sucrose preferences, while the water-

supporting

confidence: 80%

Incentive preference as a function of mode of training, sucrose concentration, and water deprivation in the rat

Fisk

1977

“…It will be recalled that earlier investigators found that only with considerable prewatering of 5 min or 14 g (Cohen & Tokieda, 1972) or massed trials and incentive access at or beyond 1 min (Beck & Nash, 1969;Beck et a!., 1972) did highly water-<ieprived animals display sucrose solution preferences. Conditions in our study of spaced trials (4-6 min) and limited access to reinforcement (10 sec) should not have favored sucrose preferences, according to these earlier experiments.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These incentive preferences, discrimination learning and also produce differential or lack of them, in highly deprived animals are not hunger or thirst conditions between the deprivation invariant since, in three of the above studies (Beck et aI., levels. Several experiments from our laboratory have 1972; Beck & Nash, 1969;Cohen & Tokieda, 1972), contrasted redundant-relevant or incidental cue dis-reinforcement access of 1 min or more/trial or prewacrimination between rats maintained on moderate tering led to sucrose preference in highly water-deprived water deprivation of 18 h/day and rats maintained on animals. high deprivation of 23.5 h/day (Cohen, Stettner, & An indirect method of assessing incentive preferences Michael, 1969;Cohen & Sullivan, 1973;Cohen & has been to measure strength of instrumental activity to Telegdy, 1970;Cohen & Tubaro, 1974; Telegdy & separately presented incentives (forced choice).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A major concern in the investigation of the effects show no preferences (Beck & Bidwell, 1974; Beck & of deprivation on cue utilization in complex discrirnina- Nash, 1969;Beck, Nash, Viernstein, & Gordon, 1972; tions is the level of lower deprivation schedules. Such Beck, Self, & Carter, 1965) or prefer water to sucrose conditions must provide enough motivation to support (Cohen & Tokieda, 1972).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incentive preference under two levels of water deprivation in the rat

Oostendorp

1976

Rats under high (23.5 h) or moderate (18 h) water deprivation were required to learn a simultaneous goal door discrimination with S+ position correlated with incentive (water and 20% sucrose). A series of free choice trials with S+ simultaneously present at both incentive positions followed the initial discrimination. Moderately deprived animals made more errors and ran more slowly to S+ when it occurred on the water side than when on the sucrose side during discrimination trials. Highly water-deprived animals displayed less consistent and less differentiated speeds between incentives. Both deprivation groups preferred sucrose to water on free choice tests, but only moderately deprived animals tended to exclusively choose sucrose. The results were interpreted as indicating that the two deprivation levels substantially created different thirst arousal conditions in the animals.

“…Under free-choice conditions and limited access to reinforcement, food-deprived and/or water-satiated rats prefer increased sucrose concentrations, while water-deprived rats (22.5-23.5 h) either prefer lower concentrations or show no reliable preferences (Beck & Bidwell , 1974;Beck & Nash, 1969;Beck, Nash, Viernstein, & Gordon, 1972;Beck, Self, & Carter, 1965;Cohen & Tokieda, 1972). With increased access to reinforcement (I min or more per trial) or prewatering, highly deprived animals will develop sucrose preferences (Beck & Nash, 1969; Beck et aI., 1972;Cohen & Tokieda, 1972). Cohen, Weir, and Granat (I975) demonstrated that highly water-deprived animals' preference for water over sucrose could be reversed by decreasing fixed intervals from 19 to .25 sec in a one-lick situation.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Incentive preference as a function of water deprivation and locus of discriminative stimuli

Oostendorp

Ross

1977

Water-deprived rats (23.5 and 18 h) acquired simultaneous discrimination tasks with position of the positive stimulus paired with water and 2Oo~ sucrose. Free-choice trials with S+ simultaneously present at both positions occurred following discrimination acquisition. Animals acquired tasks in which either goal-door and/or floor-texture cues were relevant. All moderately deprived discrimination groups displayed more errors and slower speeds to S+ at the water than at the sucrose side. Only highly deprived animals that acquired a floor· texture discrimination developed similar, but not as great, speed differences. Such speed differences were due to increased speeds to S+ at the sucrose position. All but the highly deprived floor + door learners displayed reliable free-choice sucrose preferences. Moderately deprived animals tended to display greater sucrose preferences than highly deprived animals. Results were discussed in terms of attention and learning as a function of deprivation level.Preference for sucrose solutions has been found to be a function of the type of deprivation in rats. Under free-choice conditions and limited access to reinforcement, food-deprived and/or water-satiated rats prefer increased sucrose concentrations, while water-deprived rats (22.5-23.5 h) either prefer lower concentrations or show no reliable preferences (Beck & Bidwell , 1974;Beck & Nash, 1969;Beck, Nash, Viernstein, & Gordon, 1972;Beck, Self, & Carter, 1965;Cohen & Tokieda, 1972). With increased access to reinforcement (I min or more per trial) or prewatering, highly deprived animals will develop sucrose preferences (Beck & Nash, 1969; Beck et aI., 1972;Cohen & Tokieda, 1972). Cohen, Weir, and Granat (I975) demonstrated that highly water-deprived animals' preference for water over sucrose could be reversed by decreasing fixed intervals from 19 to .25 sec in a one-lick situation. Similar relationships have also been found, when incentives were presented separately (forced-choice condition). Fooddeprived and/or water-satiated animals typically respond (barpress) more vigorously for increased sucrose solutions, while highly water-deprived animals either respond at similar rates to all incentives (water 64% sucrose) (Beck, 1963 ;Oakley, 1965;Rosen & Jacobs, 1968;Tombaugh, 1974) or develop faster rates to water (Beck & Ellis, 1966). Highly water-deprived animals would also begin to respond more vigorously to sucrose than water at the end of lengthy experimental sessions of 30 min (Rosen & Jacobs, 1968).Cohen and Oostendorp (1976) measured both forcedExperiment I in the present study was based on a thesis submitted by the second author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master's degree at the University of Windsor. The present report is based on a paper delivered at the Canadian Psychological Association meeting, Quebec City, Quebec, June 1975. The authors wish to thank Dr. R. C. Beck of Wake Forest University, Winston-Salem , North Carolina, for his valuable suggestions on the manuscript. and free-choice incentive pref...