Some Parameters of Stimulus Preexposure that Affect Conditioning and Generalization of Taste Aversions in Infant Rats

  1. Chotro, M. Gabriela 1
  2. Alonso, Gumersinda 1
  1. 1 Universidad del País Vasco, Spain
Revue:
International Journal of Comparative Psychology

ISSN: 2168-3344,  0889-3667

Année de publication: 2001

Pages: 43-63

Type: Article

DOI: 10.46867/C4NS3G GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccès ouvert editor

D'autres publications dans: International Journal of Comparative Psychology

Résumé

The effects of stimulus preexposure on conditioning and generalization of a taste aversionwere evaluated in infant rats, manipulating stimulus similarity and duration, and thelength and procedure (intermixed vs. blocked) of preexposure. Preexposure to simpletastes retarded conditioning and reduced generalization (Experiment 1a), whereas preex-posure to compound tastes facilitated conditioning and increased generalization (Experi-ment 1b). Increasing the number of preexposure trials retarded conditioning and de-creased generalization with compound tastes (Experiment 1c). These experiments failedto find a differential effect of intermixed vs. blocked stimulus preexposure. In Experi-ment 2, a 15 min exposure to the conditioned stimulus during conditioning resulted in aweak aversion, whereas a 60-min exposure resulted in a strong aversion. In Experiment 3,the strength of the aversion and the duration of the conditioned stimulus were directly re-lated in nonpreexposed pups, but inversely related in preexposed pups. In infant rats, thelevel of generalization between stimuli is determined by how preexposure affects acquisi-tion rate.

€ Voir financement

Information sur le financement

The present research was supported by a grant from Gobierno Vasco (PI97/35) and from Ministerio de Ciencia y Tecnología (PB98-0230). Gabriela Chotro was supported by a fellowship from the Gobierno Vasco (Programa de Incorporación de Doctores a la C.A.P.V.)

Financeurs

Références bibliographiques

  • Alonso, G., & Hall, G. (1999). Stimulus comparison and stimulus association processes in the perceptual learning effect. Behavioural Processes, 48, 11-23.
  • Ayres, J., Philbin, D., Cassidy, S., Bellino, L., & Redlinger, E. (1992). Some parameters of la-tent inhibition. Learning and Motivation, 23, 269-287.
  • Bennett, C. H., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1999). Comparison and contrast as a mechanism of per-ceptual learning? Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 52B, 253-272.
  • Bennett, C. H., Tremain, M., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1996). Facilitation and retardation of fla-vour aversion conditioning following prior exposure to the CS. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 49B, 220-230.
  • Campbell, B. A., & Haroutunian, V. (1983). Perceptual sharpening in the developing rat. Journal of Comparative Psychology, 97, 3-11.
  • Chotro, M. G., & Alonso, G. (1999). Effects of stimulus preexposure on the generalization of conditioned taste aversions in infant rats. Developmental Psychobiology, 35, 448-462.
  • De la Casa, G., & Lubow, R. E. (1995). Latent inhibition in conditioned taste aversion: The roles of stimulus frequency and duration and the amount of fluid ingested during preexposure. Neu-robiology of Learning and Memory, 64, 125-132.
  • Fanselow, M. S. (1990) Factors governing one-trial contextual conditioning. Animal Learning and Behavior,18, 264-270.Gibson, E. J. (1969). Principles of perceptual learning and development. New York: Apple-ton-Century-Crofts.
  • Gibson, E. J., & Walk, R. D. (1956). The effect of prolonged exposure to visually presented patterns on learning to discriminate them. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 49, 239-242.
  • Hall, G. (1996). Learning about associatively activated stimulus representations: Implications for acquired equivalence and perceptual learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 24, 233-255.
  • Hall, G. (2001). Perceptual learning: Association and differentiation. In: R. R. Mowrer & S. B. Klein (Eds.), Handbook of contemporary learning theory (pp. 367-407).
  • Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Hall, W. G., & Rosenblatt, G. (1977). Suckling behavior and intake control in the developing rat pup. Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 91, 1232-1247.
  • Hoffmann, H., Hunt, P., & Spear, N. E. (1991). Ontogenetic differences in CS palatability fol-lowing conditioned taste aversion training. Learning and Motivation, 22, 329-352.
  • Hoffmann, H., & Spear, N. E. (1989). Facilitation and impairment of conditioning in the pre-weanling rat after prior exposure to the conditioned stimulus. Animal Learning and Behavior, 17, 63-69.
  • Honey, R. C., & Bateson, P. (1996). Stimulus comparison and perceptual learning: Further evidence and evaluation from an imprinting procedure. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychol-ogy,49B, 259-269.
  • Honey, R. C., Bateson, P., & Horn, G. (1994). The role of stimulus comparison in perceptual learning: An investigation with domestic chick. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47B, 83-103.
  • Honey, R. C., & Hall, G. (1989). Enhanced discriminability and reduced associability follow-ing flavor preexposure. Learning and Motivation, 20, 262-277.
  • Kraemer, P., Hoffmann, H., & Spear, N. E. (1988). Attenuation of the CS-preexposure effect after a retention interval in preweanling rats. Animal Learning and Behavior, 16, 185-190.
  • Mackintosh, N. J., Kaye, H., & Bennett, C. H. (1991). Perceptual learning in flavour aversion conditioning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43B, 297- 322.
  • McLaren, I. P. L., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2000). An elemental model of associative learning: I. Latent inhibition and perceptual learning. Animal Learning and Behavior, 28, 211-246.
  • McLaren, I. P. L., Kaye, H., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1989). An associative theory of the repre-sentation of simuli: Applications to perceptual learning and latent inhibition. In R. G. M. Morris (Ed.),Parallel distributed processing: Implications for psychology and neurobiology (pp. 102-130). New York: Clarendon Press.
  • Rudy, J. W., Vogt, M. B., & Hyson, R. L. (1984). A developmental analysis of the rat’s learned reactions to gustatory and auditory stimulation. In R. Kail & N. E. Spear (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on the development of memory (pp. 181-208).
  • Hillsdale, N.J.: Erlbaum.Sanjuán, M. C. (2001). Efecto de la experiencia previa con los estímulos sobre su discriminación posterior. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation. Universidad del Pais Vasco.
  • Spear, N. E., Kraemer, P., Molina, J. C. & Smoller, D. E. (1988). Developmental change in learning and memory: Infantile disposition for unitization. In J. Delacour & J. C. S. Levy (Eds.),Systems with learning and memory abilities (pp. 27-52). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
  • Spear, N. E., & Mackinzie, D. L. (1994). Intersensory integration in the infant rat. In D. J. Lewkowicz & R. Lickliter (Eds.), The development of intersensory perception: Comparative perspec-tives.
  • Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Spear, N. E., & Riccio, D. C. (1994). Memory: Phenomena and principles. Boston, MA: Al-lyn and Bacon.
  • Symonds, M., & Hall, G. (1995). Perceptual learning in flavor aversion conditioning: Roles of stimulus comparison and latent inhibition of common stimulus elements. Learning and Motivation, 26, 203-219.
  • Takigasaki, T. (1993). Effects of contextual preexposure on the context-shock conditioning in rats. Japanese Psychological Research, 35, 148-152.
  • Takigasaki, T. (1994). Facilitation effect of contextual preexposure on the freezing of rats. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79,1283-1287