Effects of postconditioning inflation on odor + taste compound conditioning

The within-compound association approach has been proposed as an account of synergistic conditioning in flavor aversion learning. One prediction from the within-compound association approach is that following taste + odor compound conditioning, postconditioning inflation of one element of the compound should increase responding to the second element. In four experiments with rats, the AX+/A+ design was used to determine whether postconditioning inflation of A would increase responding to X. In Experiments 1 and 3, responding to X was significantly stronger after AX+/A+ conditioning, as compared with AX+ conditioning. In Experiments 2 and 4, the specificity of the inflation effect was demonstrated, because AX+/A+ conditioning produced a stronger aversion to X than did AX+/B+ conditioning. Furthermore, it appears that the taste + odor association is symmetrical because inflation of the taste aversion increased responding to the odor (Experiments 1 and 2) and inflation of the odor aversion increased responding to the taste (Experiments 3 and 4).     

Effects of compound or element preexposure on compound flavor aversion conditioning

Two experiments with rat subjects examined conditioning of an aversion to a compound flavor stimulus after preexposing the compound, its constituent elements, or no explicit flavor stimulus. Experiment 1 used a short-term procedure in which preexposure and conditioning treatments occurred on the same day; Experiment 2 used a long-term procedure in which more extensive preexposure was administered several days before conditioning. In both experiments, preexposure of the elements slowed conditioning to the compound more than did preexposure of the compound itself. These effects were apparently not mediated by changes in pseudoconditioned or neophobic responses. The results were related to Lubow’s conditioned attention theory of stimulus preexposure effects.     

Taste aversion learning and schedule-induced polydipsia in rats

Experiment 1 sought to determine whether schedule-induced drinking could be abolished by means of a taste aversion. Polydipsic rats were given access to a .4% saccharin solution while they were exposed to an intermittent food schedule. Immediately after the session, they received an intraperitoneal injection of either lithium chloride or sodium chloride. Following a recovery day with water in the experimental chamber, the animals were again exposed to the saccharin solution. The poisoned animals (lithium chloride) drank very little saccharin compared to the control animals (sodium chloride), indicating that they had learned a taste aversion in only one conditioning trial. Experiment 2 established that polydipsic rats can learn a taste aversion despite a long delay between schedule-induced saccharin consumption and poisoning, and that the delay gradient displayed by polydipsic rats is similar to that observed in thirst-motivated rats.     

Taste and odor in conditioned flavor preference learning

Almond and peppermint extracts were combined with salt and citric acid as cues in conditioned flavor preference conditioning. In Experiment 1, extracts overshadowed tastes, although tastes and extracts conditioned equally well when presented in isolation. In Experiments 2 and 3, tastes and extracts were conditioned in isolation prior to conditioning of a taste/extract compound. The conditioning history of the tastes and extracts did not affect the overshadowing of taste by extract. The results of Experiment 4 showed that rats could learn to discriminate between a taste and extract presented in isolation vs. the taste/extract compound. Thus, extracts do not interfere with sensing the tastes. We suggest that a taste/extract compound produces a configural stimulus that is more characteristic of the extract than the taste.     

Second-order conditioning detects unexpressed morphine-induced salt aversion

Morphine failed to condition a salt taste aversion at a dose (15 mg/kg) sufficient to produce a robust aversion to a saccharin taste. Indeed, three different concentrations of salt (1%, 1.5%, and 2%) paired with the same morphine dose yielded no direct evidence for conditioned aversion. Yet, when a novel saccharin taste was paired in compound with the previously conditioned salt conditioned stimulus, we found evidence for a conditioning to the saccharin cue alone in three separate experiments. Control groups eliminated alternative accounts such as neophobia and differential exposure to morphine. Combined, these findings indicate that morphine conditioned a salt aversion. Although this aversion was not directly expressed, a second-order conditioning procedure was able to provide a more sensitive index of conditioning.     

Higher order conditioning of a taste aversion

Two groups of rats each received 5 drops of NaCl solution from a dropper placed directly inside the mouth. The experimental group was then injected with lithium chloride to establish a conditioned taste aversion. The control group was injected 24 h later. After a recovery day the above procedures were repeated. On the next day both groups received 5 drops of a saccharin solution followed immediately by 5 drops of the NaCl solution. Subsequent preference tests established that the experimental group had learned an aversion to the saccharin solution as a result of its pairing with the NaCl solution which had previously been associated with poisoning. These results demonstrate that higher order conditioning of a taste aversion can be established using tastes as both the first-order stimulus and the second-order stimulus.     

A contingency analysis of taste aversion conditioning

The acquisition of conditioned taste aversion was assessed relative to five control procedures. That is, forward conditioning using multiple-trial, brief-duration taste CSs and weak USs over a 30-min CS-US delay was compared to backward, CS alone, US alone, sham CS and sham US, and random control procedures. The outcome supported an associative conditioning interpretation of the learned aversion. While there were no differences between the various control procedures, all were different from the forward conditioning group. The argument was made that some of the distinctive associative and nonassociative phenomena attributed to taste aversion conditioning (but not seen in the present study) may in part be due to the duration and intensity of both the CS and US events.     

Taste quality and extinction of a conditioned taste aversion in rats

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) that received a taste cue (saccharin, saline, quinine, or sucrose) paired with a lithium chloride (LiCl) injection displayed a robust decrease in consumption of that taste, relative to controls that had the taste unpaired with LiCl. Consumption of the paired taste increased with each nonreinforced presentation (i.e., extinction). After asymptotic extinction, rats that had had a 0.1% saccharin cue paired with LiCl consumed less of the saccharin solution than did controls. A similar data pattern was observed with a 10% sucrose solution. These results are consistent with the view that some aspect of the excitatory CS-US association remains after extinction. On the other hand, rats that had a bitter (0.005% or 0.001% quinine) or salty (1% or 0.5% saline) solution paired with LiCl drank similar amounts of the fluid as controls after asymptotic extinction treatment. Together, these experiments suggest that a taste that is either sweet or preferred is required in order to demonstrate the chronic decrease in fluid consumption after extinction treatment. The data suggest that the conditioning experience prevents the later development of a preference for the sweet taste, rather than there being a retained aversion that suppresses fluid consumption.     

Competition between ethanol-induced reward and aversion in place conditioning

Previous place conditioning studies in mice have shown that injection of ethanol immediately before a conditioned stimulus (CS+) produces conditioned preference, whereas injection of ethanol immediately after CS+ produces conditioned aversion. In the present experiments, we examined the learning that occurs when ethanol is injected in “ambiguous“ procedures that provide the opportunity for both types of conditioning. When ethanol was given midway through the CS (Experiments 1 and 2) or both before and after the CS (Experiment 3), the direction of place conditioning was the same as when mice were exposed only to whichever contingency occurred first (a primacy effect). That is, injection of ethanol in the middle of the CS conditioned aversion, whereas injection both before and after the CS conditioned preference. Because these results support the idea that ethanol elicits both aversive and rewarding effects, they are most consistent with conditioning theories that conceptualize unconditioned stimuli (USs) as events that can activate multiple representational components.     

Differences in taste-potentiated odor aversions with O+/OT+ versus OT+/O+ conditioning: Implications for configural associations

The present research demonstrates a conditioning order effect difference: Odor-aversion conditioning is stronger following OT+/O+ conditioning than following O+/OT+ conditioning with specific odor (O) and taste (T) cues. When a weak odor cue was used in Experiments 1A and 1B, OT+/O+ conditioning produced significantly stronger odor aversions than did either O+/OT+ or O+/O+ conditioning, which did not differ. The same design was used in Experiment 2 with a strong odor, but the order effect difference was not replicated, suggesting that the order effect difference is specific to conditions that produce taste-potentiated odor aversions. The interpretation that O+/OT+ conditioning is weaker because of the absence of a taste-odor within-compound association was not supported in Experiments 3 and 4. Notably, using stimuli that supported potentiation in earlier experiments, in Experiment 4, we found evidence of a taste-odor within-compound association in the absence of potentiation. These results confirm that previous theories of potentiation (within-compound association model, sensory-and-gate channeling model) are not sufficient to produce potentiation. Instead, these results are interpreted in terms of taste-odor configural associations.     

Taste avoidance and taste aversion: Evidence for two different processes

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.     

Positive and negative patterning after CS preexposure in flavor aversion conditioning

Three experiments examined rats’ ability to discriminate a compound conditioned stimulus (CS) from the individual elements of that compound in a flavor aversion conditioning paradigm. In Experiment 1, presentations of a compound of sucrose and saline solutions were followed by lithium chloride injections, but presentations of those elements individually were nonrein-forced (positive patterning). Conversely, in Experiments 2 and 3, presentations of the individual elements were followed by lithium chloride injection, but compound presentations were non-reinforced (negative patterning). The discriminations were acquired in all three experiments. In addition, all three experiments investigated the effects of preexposure of the discriminative stimuli on subsequent acquisition of the patterned discriminations. In positive patterning, preexposure had no measurable effect on the acquisition of responding (suppression) to the reinforced compound stimulus, but slowed the loss of suppression to the nonreinforced elements. In negative patterning, preexposure slowed the acquisition of suppression to the reinforced elements but had little effect on the loss of suppression to the nonreinforced compound.     

Overshadowing of environmental cues by an odor in toxicosis-based conditioning in rats

It was demonstrated that an odor presented to rats in a distinctive environment can interfere with toxicosis-based conditioning to the environmental cues. Rats poisoned when they drank unflavored water in a black compartment odorized with oil of eucalyptus exhibited no suppression of water intake when they were subsequently tested in the same compartment minus the odor. In contrast, rats poisoned in the same compartment minus the odor later exhibited reduced water consumption in that environment. Oil of eucalyptus proved to be as effective an overshadowing stimulus as a taste cue (a 1.5% NaCl solution).     

Stimulus competition in the absence of compound conditioning

Most associative theories have assumed that stimulus competition occurs only between conditioned stimuli (CSs) that are trained in compound. The present research investigated the possibility of competition between two CSs that were individually paired to the same unconditioned stimulus (US). We used human subjects in an anticipatory suppression analogue to Pavlovian conditioning. Experiment 1 showed that X+ training followed by A+ training resulted in impaired responding to X. This did not occur when A+ training preceded X+ training. Experiment 2 replicated the basic effect and showed that it did not occur when the Phase 2 training consisted of A? instead of A+ nor when the A+ pairings occurred in a second context. Experiment 3 showed that A+ pairings occurring in a second context could still produce the effect when X was tested in the context in which the A+ pairings had occurred, but not when X was tested in a context different from that used for A+ training. Collectively, these results suggest that individually trained CSs may compete with each other when one of those CSs is more strongly activated by the test context than the other one.     

Potentiation of taste by another taste during compound aversion learning

Two experiments with rat subjects examined whether a saccharin taste could potentiate the conditioning of an aversion to a salty taste when the two stimuli were presented together prior to lithium-induced illness. In Experiment 1, a 0.1% (w/v) saccharin solution potentiated conditioning of a very dilute (0.03%) NaCl solution, but had no demonstrable effect on two stronger NaCl solutions (0.6% and 1.2%). In Experiment 2, the 0.1% saccharin solution again potentiated the 0.03% NaCl target, but weaker and stronger saccharin concentrations (0.033% and 0.3%) did not. The ability of a taste to potentiate a secondtaste is not consistent with theories that assume that potentiation is unique to compounds composed of tastes and other, functionally different, nontaste cues. Potentiation may occur when the target stimulus is weakly conditionable on its own and when the particular combination of target and potentiator facilitates perceptual integration of the compound.     

The basic tastants in aversion conditioning: Evidence for sensory preconditioning and not potentiation

In Experiment 1, a potentiation paradigm was used to test the relative influence of odor and taste with two 2 basic tastants (i.e., salt and sweet) in conditioned aversion learning. Experiment 1 showed that aversions to tastants (salt or sweet presented in a manner by which it could be tasted) were established only in subjects trained with the tastant, not the odor (i.e., salt or sweet presented in a manner by which it could not be tasted). Experiment 2 demonstrated, with a sensory preconditioning procedure, that the expression of an aversion to tastants was dependent on previous tastant experience prior to odor aversion training. These results suggest that while subjects can smell salt and sweet solutions, these odors are neither sufficient nor necessary for the expression of a conditioned tastant aversion.     

Resistance to extinction of a learned taste aversion varies with time of conditioning

Sixteen rats were maintained out of doors in cages with natural light, temperature, and social stimulation for 3 months. Subsequently, by pairing the taste of sucrose with IP injections of LiCl, the rats were conditioned to avoid sucrose. Each of four groups of rats received the CS-US pairing at a different time of day. Times of conditioning were 6 a.m., 12 a.m., 6 p.m. and 12 p.m. EST. A two-bottle preference test between 4% sucrose solution and tap water was initiated 24-h after conditioning. Daily measurements of preference were continued for 16 consecutive days. Results indicated that, although all groups initially exhibited equivalent sucrose aversions, the groups conditioned at 12 a.m. and 6 p.m. extinguished within 12 days while the 6 a.m. and 12 p.m. groups continued to manifest profound aversions for sucrose throughout the 16 test days.     

A history of morphine-induced taste aversion learning fails to affect morphine-induced place preference conditioning in rats

Drugs of abuse have both rewarding and aversive effects, as indexed by the fact that they support place preferences and taste aversions, respectively. In the present study, we explored whether having a history with the aversive effects of morphine (via taste aversion conditioning) impacted the subsequent rewarding effects of morphine, as measured in the place preference design. In Experiment 1, rats were exposed to a taste aversion procedure in which saccharin was followed by morphine. Place preference conditioning was then initiated in which animals were injected with morphine and placed on one side of a two-chambered apparatus. Animals with a taste aversion history acquired place preferences to the same degree as controls without such a history, suggesting that morphine’s affective properties condition multiple effects, dependent on the specific stimuli present during conditioning. To determine whether these results were a reflection of processes operating in traditional associative conditioning, in a modified blocking procedure, place preference conditioning was attempted in the presence of a taste previously associated with morphine (Exp. 2). Under these conditions, animals still acquired morphine-induced place preferences comparable to those of animals without a morphine or conditioning history. These results are consistent with the position that drugs of abuse have multiple stimulus effects (positive and negative) that are differentially associated with specific stimuli (environmental and taste) that drive different behavioral responses (approach and avoidance).     

Effects of pretraining on conditioning-enhanced neophobia: Evidence for separable mechanisms of neophobia and aversion conditioning

In two experiments, rats (n = 228) received pretraining access to a distinctive novel flavor (saline) followed by aversion conditioning to a different novel conditioned stimulus (CS) (saccharin). Then the rats were tested for aversion to the CS (saccharin) or for conditioning-enhanced neophobia to a third novel flavor (casein hydrolysate). Pretraining access to a distinctive novel flavor that differed from the CS reliably reduced the magnitude of conditioning-enhanced neophobia to casein, but did not reliably affect conditioned aversion effects to the CS. Pretraining access to the CS reduced aversion effects to the CS and reduced postconditioning neophobia to casein to the performance level shown by ingestion-toxin controls. Results were consistent with the view (Braveman & Jarvis, 1978) that conditioned aversion and neophobia may be independent phenomena with separable underlying mechanisms.