Weanling and senescent rats process simultaneously presented odor and taste differently than young adults

Hinderliter, Charles F.; Misanin, James R.

doi:10.1016/s0163-1047(88)91297-6

Cited by 16 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, a recent study has shown that the ease with which an association is made between taste and an immediate illness is directly related to age in rats whose ages range from weanling to old age (Misanin et al, 1985). In another sense, the present results are surprising since previous work from our laboratory (Hinderliter & Misanin, 1988) suggested that aged rats would be more likely to show poorer long-delay learning than young adults. There were , however , procedural differences between the two studies, as well as difference s in the ages of the mature rats and in the way of assessing aversion ; these may have contributed to the difference in the outcomes of the two studies.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 76%

“…The results of a recent study (Misanin, Blatt, & Hinderliter, 1985) indicate that age differences in conditioned taste aversion may be obscured by a US of even moderate intensity. Furthermore, Hinderliter and Misanin (1988), using a weaker US (.15 M LiCl) than that used by Ingram and Peacock (.4 M LiCl), found that both weanling and aged rats showed substantially less aversion to a novel flavor than did young adults when the illnessinducing US was delayed 1 h after access to the flavor CS. Hinderliter and Misanin, unlike Ingram and Peacock , however, did not systematically manipulate the CS-US interval.…”

mentioning

confidence: 91%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Age differences in the outcome of long-delay taste-aversion conditioning in rats

Misanin

Greider

Hinderliter

1988

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Weanling, young-adult, and aged rats were subjected to taste-aversion conditioning with a relatively weak US (1% body weight i.p. injection of .15M Lifll) at one of four CS-US intervals (0, 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 h). Age differences occurred at all intervals, with aged rats showing superior conditioning. Increasing the CS-US interval was more disruptive the younger the rat. Although not unequivocal, the results suggest that the processes involved in associative memory during taste-aversion conditioning may involve different processes from those that mediate long-delay learning in more conventional learning tasks.There is ample evidence that both reference memory (i.e. , the long-term maintenance of acquired associations between events; e.g. , Gold & McGaugh , 1975) and working memory (i.e ., the memory process that permits correct discriminative behavior on the basis of trace stimuli ; Zometzer, Thompson , & Rogers , 1982) are impaired with aging in rats (Kubanis & Zometzer, 1981). In contrast, it is not clear whether the associative memory capability (i.e. , the memory capability that is necessary for good performance when there is a long delay between two events to be associated) of aged rats is impaired . Although Doty (1966) found aged rats to be significantly inferior to young-adult rats on a delayed avoidance task, Ingram and Peacock (1980) reported little evidence of significant age differences in saccharin aversions conditioned in mature rats with short (15-min) and long (1-to 4-h) conditioned stimulus-unconditioned stimulus (CS-US) intervals.Ingram and Peacock's (1980) failure to find age differences may have been due to their relatively intense US . The results of a recent study (Misanin, Blatt, & Hinderliter, 1985) indicate that age differences in conditioned taste aversion may be obscured by a US of even moderate intensity. Furthermore, Hinderliter and Misanin (1988), using a weaker US (.15 M LiCl) than that used by Ingram and Peacock (.4 M LiCl), found that both weanling and aged rats showed substantially less aversion to a novel flavor than did young adults when the illnessinducing US was delayed 1 h after access to the flavor CS. Hinderliter and Misanin, unlike Ingram and Peacock , however, did not systematically manipulate the CS-US interval. Thus , the purpose of the present study was to Thie research was supported by Grant HD21161 from the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development to the first author . Reprint requests are to be sent to James R. Misanin, Department of Psychology, Susquehanna University, Selinsgrove, PA 17870. use a weaker US intensity than that used by Ingram and Peacock (1980) and systematically manipulate the CS-US interval in the long-delay taste-aversion conditioning of weanling , young-adult, and aged rats to determine at what CS-US intervals age differences emerge. METHOD SubjectsThe rats used were 40 female Wistar albino rats from each of three age groups: weanling (21-24 days), young adult (76-% days), and aged (680-825 days). All animals were born in the uni...

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 76%

mentioning

confidence: 91%

Age differences in the outcome of long-delay taste-aversion conditioning in rats

Misanin

Greider

Hinderliter

1988

Bull. Psychon. Soc.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Studies with rats by Hinderliter and Misanin (1988), Spear and Molina (1987), and Rusiniak, Garcia, Palmerino, and Cabral (1983) indicated that the cues of ingesta that influence neophobia and aversion conditioning change during ontogeny. In avians, a well-developed visual system and a relatively underdeveloped taste receptor system (Clarke, Westbrook, & Irwin, 1979;Martin & Bellingham, 1979) may predispose ontogenetic differences in the utilization of visual and taste cues for approach and consumption.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Roles of visual and taste cues in ingestional neophobia: Response latency effects in chicks (Gallus domesticus)

Franchina

Johnson

Leynes

1994

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Latency measures of starting to drink and of consummatory behavior were used to investigate ingestional neophobia to novel visual and novel taste cues in chicks. In Experiment 1 (N = 36), latencies to start drinking were reliably shorter to ingesta that appeared familiar from previous rearing or preexposure procedures. After drinking started, consummatory responding occurred reliably more rapidly to familiar taste cues than to novel ones. However, the presence offamiliar visual cues reliably facilitated consumption of a novel taste. Experiments 2 and 3 (Ns = 144 and 180) were performed to evaluate, respectively, whether the ingestional effects of taste stimulus intensity, 0%-6% vinegar, and of visual stimulus intensity, 0%-1.0% concentrations of red foodcoloring in water, changed during ontogeny for chicks 3, 5, and 7 days old. In Experiment 2, reliable direct effects of taste concentration on consummatory response latencies occurred immediately in 7-day-olds but were delayed in 3-day-olds. In Experiment 3, each age group immediately showed reliably slower starting and consummatory response times, the higher the concentration of red food-coloring. Intake performance in both experiments was consistent with the latency data. Experiments 1-3 showed that visual and taste cues of ingesta separately influenced approach and consummatory behaviors of the ingestive response sequence and that these influences depend on ontogenetic events.A functional analysis of the stimulus complex occasioned by ingesta suggests that different stimuli influence different aspects of the ingestive sequence. Visual or olfactory cues may provide telereceptive information for elicitation of approach behavior and the start of ingestion; cues from taste or gastric stimulation may provide interoceptive information for consummatory behavior or maintaining ingestion (Brett, Hankins,

show abstract

“…For example, young animals do not show adults' inclination for overshadowing when they are tested on a single element of a compound training stimulus (Kraemer, Lariviere, & Spear, 1988;Mellon, Kraemer, & Spear, 1991) but rather show potentiation, the opposite of overshadowing (Hinderliter & Misanin, 1988;Kucharski & Spear, 1985;Spear & Kucharski, 1984). Age-related differences also exist in the treatment of contextual stimuli (Lariviere, Chen, & Spear, 1990; McKinzie, Lee, Bronfen, Spear, & Spear, 1994;Solheim, Hensler, & Spear, 1980).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Ontogenetic differences in conditioning to context and CS as a function of context saliency and CS-US interval

McKinzie

Spear

1995

Animal Learning & Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A series of experiments examined ontogenetically the effects of context saliency and CS-US interval on the learning of CS-US and context-US associations. Although adult rats generally showed an inverse relationship between CS and context learning that depended upon CS-US interval and context saliency, the opposite relationship held for preweanlings, Consistent with many contemporary learning theories, adult rats expressed CS-context competition in learning about the US. Preweanlings, on the other hand, exhibited potentiated responding to either the context or the CS as a result of strong learning about the other element. These results suggest that adult and infant rats process information in a qualitatively different manner.Infants and adults may process information in a qualitatively different manner. For example, young animals do not show adults' inclination for overshadowing when they are tested on a single element of a compound training stimulus (Kraemer, Lariviere, & Spear, 1988;Mellon, Kraemer, & Spear, 1991) but rather show potentiation, the opposite of overshadowing (Hinderliter & Misanin, 1988;Kucharski & Spear, 1985;Spear & Kucharski, 1984). Age-related differences also exist in the treatment of contextual stimuli (Lariviere, Chen, & Spear, 1990; McKinzie, Lee, Bronfen, Spear, & Spear, 1994;Solheim, Hensler, & Spear, 1980). For example, McKinzie and Spear (1991) found that preweanling rats expressed strong learning to both context and tone following tone-footshock pairings. Context conditioning in animals given pairings ofa conditional stimulus (CS) and an unconditional stimulus (US) exceeded that in preweanlings given unpaired presentations of the same events. Thus, pairing of a tone CS with the US potentiated responding to the context (see also Goodwin et aI., 1992).Adults are more likely to attend to stimuli in the selective manner indicative of overshadowing. Punctate CSs usually are chosen for their capacity to elicit an orienting reflex (Pavlov, 1927) and, therefore, are likely to overshadow contextual stimuli in a typical conditioning experiment. Associative competition between the context and CS occurs in procedures that vary contingency and contiguity of the CS-US relationship. For example, Odling- Smee (1975) found that, as CS-US contingency decreased, conditioning to the training context increased. Marlin (1981) found that an inverse relationship existed between context and CS learning as a function of CS-US interval. When the CS and US were temporally contiguous, responding to the CS overshadowed responding to the context. As CS-US interval increased, however, conditioning to the CS diminished, while context learning increased. At an intermediate trace interval, conditioning occurred to both the context and the CS, whereas only context conditioning occurred at long CS-US intervals. Marlin concluded that both context and CS stimuli potentially form associations with the US and that learning occurs to the better predictor of the forthcoming US.The purpose of the present series of experiments...

show abstract

Weanling and senescent rats process simultaneously presented odor and taste differently than young adults

Cited by 16 publications

References 12 publications

Age differences in the outcome of long-delay taste-aversion conditioning in rats

Age differences in the outcome of long-delay taste-aversion conditioning in rats

Roles of visual and taste cues in ingestional neophobia: Response latency effects in chicks (Gallus domesticus)

Ontogenetic differences in conditioning to context and CS as a function of context saliency and CS-US interval

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About