» Articles » PMID: 21476121

Partial Reinforcement and Latent Inhibition Effects on Stimulus-outcome Associations in Flavor Preference Conditioning

Overview
Journal Learn Behav
Publisher Springer
Date 2011 Apr 9
PMID 21476121
Citations 4
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Two experiments with thirsty rats explored the harmful effects of non-reinforced exposures to a flavor cue in the control by sensory-specific flavor-sucrose associations in a conditioned flavor preference paradigm. Experiment 1 demonstrated that rats learned to prefer a flavor cue that was consistently paired with sucrose over one that was paired with sucrose the same number of times but was also presented without sucrose on other occasions. However, rats for which sucrose was devalued following the conditioning phase preferred the partially reinforced flavor cue over the consistently reinforced flavor, suggesting that non-reinforcement weakened the ability of that flavor cue to evoke a specific representation of sucrose during the preference test. Experiment 2 demonstrated comparable effects of non-reinforcement in a latent inhibition procedure, although relatively more non-reinforced pre exposures to the flavor, in conjunction with fewer flavor-sucrose pairings, were required to see the effect. Together, the results suggest, as is often found with more traditional learning paradigms, that non-reinforcement of a flavor cue has deleterious effects on preference learning and/or performance.

Citing Articles

Another look at the extinction of conditioned flavor preferences: Amount of training and tests for spontaneous recovery.

Delamater A, Tu N, Huang J Learn Behav. 2021; 49(4):405-421.

PMID: 34405379 PMC: 8604786. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-021-00480-7.


Facilitation and retardation of flavor preference conditioning following prior exposure to the flavor conditioned stimulus.

Morillas E, Gonzalez F, Hall G Learn Behav. 2018; 47(2):177-186.

PMID: 30421121 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-018-0368-4.


Latent inhibition in flavor-preference conditioning: effects of motivational state and the nature of the reinforcer.

Gonzalez F, Morillas E, Hall G Learn Behav. 2015; 43(4):376-83.

PMID: 26077443 DOI: 10.3758/s13420-015-0185-y.


Odors: appetizing or satiating? Development of appetite during odor exposure over time.

Ramaekers M, Boesveldt S, Lakemond C, van Boekel M, Luning P Int J Obes (Lond). 2013; 38(5):650-6.

PMID: 23917805 DOI: 10.1038/ijo.2013.143.

References
1.
Pearce J, Hall G . A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev. 1980; 87(6):532-52. View

2.
Tracy A, Davidson T . Comparison of nutritive and nonnutritive stimuli in intestinal and oral conditioned taste aversion paradigms. Behav Neurosci. 2007; 120(6):1268-78. DOI: 10.1037/0735-7044.120.6.1268. View

3.
Tracy A, Phillips R, Chi M, Powley T, Davidson T . The gastrointestinal tract "tastes" nutrients: evidence from the intestinal taste aversion paradigm. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol. 2004; 287(5):R1086-100. DOI: 10.1152/ajpregu.00047.2004. View

4.
Berridge K, Grill H, Norgren R . Relation of consummatory responses and preabsorptive insulin release to palatability and learned taste aversions. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1981; 95(3):363-82. DOI: 10.1037/h0077782. View

5.
Bouton M . Context and behavioral processes in extinction. Learn Mem. 2004; 11(5):485-94. DOI: 10.1101/lm.78804. View