Sex Differences in Cue Competition Effects With a Conditioned Taste Aversion Preparation

Overview

Journal Front Behav Neurosci

Specialty Psychology

Date 2020 Jul 14

PMID 32655385

Citations 1

Authors

Rocio Angulo

Javier Bustamante

Vania Estades

Valeska Ramirez

Belen Jorquera

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

This study aimed to test whether male and female rats might show differences in cue competition effects in a conditioned taste aversion (CTA) model. Experiment 1 tested for sex differences in overshadowing. After conditioning of a flavored compound AB or only one simple flavor A (being A and B a solution of sugar 10% and salt 1%, counterbalanced), consumption of the A solution at test was larger in the former than in the latter case only in males. Thus, the usual effect of overshadowing was observed in males but not in females. Experiment 2 examined sex differences in blocking with the same stimuli used in Experiment 1. After conditioning of AB, the consumption of B was larger for the animals that previously received a single conditioning trial with A than for those that received unpaired presentations of A and the illness. As observed in Experiment 1, the typical blocking effect appeared only in males but not in females. The present findings thus support the hypothesis that sex dimorphism might be expressed in classical conditioning, or at least, in cue competition effects such as overshadowing and blocking with a taste aversion model.

Citing Articles

Brain-inspired classical conditioning model.

Zhao Y, Zeng Y, Qiao G iScience. 2021; 24(1):101980.

PMID: 33490893 PMC: 7808924. DOI: 10.1016/j.isci.2020.101980.

References

Gillan D, Domjan M . Taste-aversion conditioning with expected versus unexpected drug treatment. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1977; 3(4):297-309. DOI: 10.1037//0097-7403.3.4.297. View

Rodriguez C, Chamizo V, Mackintosh N . Overshadowing and blocking between landmark learning and shape learning: the importance of sex differences. Learn Behav. 2011; 39(4):324-35. DOI: 10.3758/s13420-011-0027-5. View

Andreano J, Dickerson B, Barrett L . Sex differences in the persistence of the amygdala response to negative material. Soc Cogn Affect Neurosci. 2013; 9(9):1388-94. PMC: 4158377. DOI: 10.1093/scan/nst127. View

Angulo R, Arevalo-Romero C . Sexual dimorphism in classical conditioning? Sex differences in neophobia, latent inhibition, generalization, and extinction for rats (Rattus norvegicus) in a conditioned taste aversion preparation irrespective of housing conditions. J Comp Psychol. 2021; 135(3):315-326. DOI: 10.1037/com0000275. View

Chai X, Jacobs L . Sex differences in directional cue use in a virtual landscape. Behav Neurosci. 2009; 123(2):276-83. DOI: 10.1037/a0014722. View

Blechert J, Michael T, Vriends N, Margraf J, Wilhelm F . Fear conditioning in posttraumatic stress disorder: evidence for delayed extinction of autonomic, experiential, and behavioural responses. Behav Res Ther. 2007; 45(9):2019-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.brat.2007.02.012. View

Garcia J, KOELLING R . A comparison of aversions induced by x-rays, toxins, and drugs in the rat. Radiat Res Suppl. 1967; 7:439-50. View

Lubow R . Latent inhibition as a measure of learned inattention: some problems and solutions. Behav Brain Res. 1997; 88(1):75-83. DOI: 10.1016/s0166-4328(97)02307-3. View

Westbrook R, Brookes N . Potentiation and blocking of conditioned flavour and context aversions. Q J Exp Psychol B. 1988; 40(1):3-30. View

10.

Kwok D, Boakes R . Situational relevance: Context as a factor in serial overshadowing of taste aversion learning. Q J Exp Psychol (Hove). 2017; 72(2):263-273. DOI: 10.1080/17470218.2017.1338739. View

11.

Vandorpe S, De Houwer J . A comparison of forward blocking and reduced overshadowing in human causal learning. Psychon Bull Rev. 2006; 12(5):945-9. DOI: 10.3758/bf03196790. View

12.

Prendergast B, Onishi K, Zucker I . Female mice liberated for inclusion in neuroscience and biomedical research. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2014; 40:1-5. DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.01.001. View

13.

Chambers K, Sengstake C . Temporal aspects of the dependency of a dimorphic rate of extinction on testosterone. Physiol Behav. 1979; 22(1):53-6. DOI: 10.1016/0031-9384(79)90403-7. View

14.

Sava S, Markus E . Intramaze cue utilization in the water maze: effects of sex and estrous cycle in rats. Horm Behav. 2005; 48(1):23-33. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2005.01.011. View

15.

Becker J, Prendergast B, Liang J . Female rats are not more variable than male rats: a meta-analysis of neuroscience studies. Biol Sex Differ. 2016; 7:34. PMC: 4962440. DOI: 10.1186/s13293-016-0087-5. View

16.

Maren S, De Oca B, Fanselow M . Sex differences in hippocampal long-term potentiation (LTP) and Pavlovian fear conditioning in rats: positive correlation between LTP and contextual learning. Brain Res. 1994; 661(1-2):25-34. DOI: 10.1016/0006-8993(94)91176-2. View

17.

Kucharski D, Spear N . Potentiation and overshadowing in preweanling and adult rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1985; 11(1):15-34. DOI: 10.1037//0097-7403.11.1.15. View

18.

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

19.

Van Haaren F, Hughes C . Cocaine-induced conditioned taste aversions in male and female Wistar rats. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1990; 37(4):693-6. DOI: 10.1016/0091-3057(90)90549-w. View

20.

Cailhol S, Mormede P . Conditioned taste aversion and alcohol drinking: strain and gender differences. J Stud Alcohol. 2002; 63(1):91-9. View