Influence of lithium chloride intensity on unconditioned stimulus-alone interference in a flavor aversion paradigm

Two studies were conducted to explore the influence of US preexposure intensity on the development of a flavor aversion. In the first experiment, subjects were exposed to four US-alone presentations [1 per day, every other day over 8 days at one of four dose levels (0, 0.5, 1.5, or 3.0 meq LiCl)]. Following the US-alone treatment, an equal number of rats from each US-alone dose level condition received a series of sucrose-illness pairings at one of three conditioning dose levels. The results of this study showed that if the US-alone dose level was below the conditioning dose level, less interference was found than when the preexposure and conditioning doses were equivalent. A strong proactive US-alone interference was found when the US-alone dose level was either equal to or above the conditioning US intensity. In Experiment 2, a greater range of preconditioning US-alone dose levels was used. Also, the number of US-alone exposures decreased to two in Experiment 2. The results of Experiment 2 showed that less proactive US-alone interference occurred when the US-alone dose was either below or slightly above the conditioning US dose than when the US-alone and conditioning dose levels were equal. Further, when the preexposure US intensity was much above the conditioning US intensity, the level of interference was equivalent to that produced when the US-alone and conditioning US intensities were equivalent. These observations are discussed in terms of context blocking and generalization decrement models of the US preexposure effect.     

The influence of context and UCS intensity on the UCS preexposure effect in a flavor aversion paradigm

Three studies were conducted to evaluate the influence of environmental context and UCS preexposure intensity on the acquisition of a flavor aversion. In the first study, rats were exposed to two UCS-alone presentations at one of three dose levels of LiCl. The rats were given the two UCS preexposures in one of two contexts (familiar or novel). Following the UCS-alone treatment, all of the subjects received two pairings of sucrose and LiCl (1.25 meq) in the familiar context. Animals receiving UCS preexposures in the same context as used during conditioning consumed significantly more sucrose than did saline control animals. In contrast, the influence of prior UCS preexposure was not evident when UCS preexposure was experienced in a context different from that experienced during conditioning. In Experiment 2, all animal received UCS preexposure and conditioning in the novel room. Animals received either two or four preexposures at 0, 1.25, or 3.75 meq dose of LiCl. Two UCS preexposures at 3.75 meq dose produced a stronger UCS preexposure effect than did the 1.25 meq dose. Animals in Experiment 3 received two exposures to either 0-, 1.25-, or 3.75-meq LiCl in one of two contexts, followed by conditioning with the 1.25-meq LiCl dose in the same context as preexposure. Greater UCS interference occurred in animals preexposed to LiCl in the novel rather than familiar environment, with no specific dose effects in either context. These observations are discussed in terms of context blocking and generalization decrement models of the UCS preexposure effect.     

The US-preexposure effect in lithium-induced flavor-aversion conditioning is a consequence of blocking by injection cues

In 2 experiments, rats received flavor-aversion conditioning in which the unconditioned stimulus (US) was an orally consumed solution of lithium chloride (LiCl). The resulting aversion was not attenuated by giving preexposure to injections of LiCl, although such preexposure did attenuate aversions established using injected LiCl as the US (Experiment 1). This outcome suggests that blocking by injection-related cues is responsible for the US-preexposure effect observed in this situation. Experiment 2 confirmed this interpretation by showing that presenting such cues (by giving an injection of saline) at the time that the LiCl was drunk resulted in an attenuation of conditioning in animals preexposed to injections of LiCl. The US-preexposure effect obtained in these experiments can be explained solely in terms of blocking by injection cues, although other mechanisms may contribute to the effect seen in other flavor-aversion paradigms.     

The Influence of Retention Interval on the US Preexposure Effect: Changes in Contextual Blocking over Time

A number of studies manipulating the length of the interval between conditioning and testing indicate spontaneous recovery from overshadowing, suggesting that certain instances of overshadowing represent a deficit in memory retrieval rather than a failure of animals to form an association between the overshadowed stimulus and the US. The present series of experiments examined the influence of lengthening the retention interval on blocking, another stimulus selection phenomenon that is typically interpreted as an acquisition deficit. The results indicated that when subjects were tested shortly (3 days) after training conditioning to a taste blocked subsequent conditioning to an odor conditioned in compound with that taste (Experiment 1), whereas prior conditioning to an odor did not block subsequent conditioning to a taste conditioned in compound with that odor (Experiment 2). This pattern of results was essentially unchanged when testing occurred at a longer (21-day) retention interval. However, there was evidence of a US preexposure effect in Experiment 2 when subjects in the US ONLY control condition were tested at the 3-day retention interval, but not when testing occurred 21 days after conditioning. Experiments 3 and 4 examined whether this loss of the US preexposure effect over time might actually represent a change in the degree of contextual blocking as the retention interval is lengthened. Exposure to the conditioning context either during the interval between Phase 1 and Phase 2 of conditioning (Experiment 3) or prior to Phase 1 of conditioning (Experiment 4) alleviated this US preexposure effect suggesting that the loss of the US preexposure effect as the retention interval is lengthened observed in Experiment 2 is due to changes in the degree of blocking by contextual stimuli over time. The results are discussed in terms of differential susceptibility of forgetting of two functional roles played by a contextual stimuli in the current situation-context as a CS and context as a retrieval cue for other CS-US associations.     

The Effects of a Pretrained Excitatory Stimulus on Schedule-Induced Polydipsia in the Rat

The purpose of the present study was to test two predictions derived from the application of Pavlovian conditioning principles to the schedule-induced polydipsia (SIP) phenomena. The first prediction was that a pretrained excitatory signal for pellet delivery would facilitate the development of SIP. A second prediction was that phenomena which are typically observed in Pavlovian conditioning experiments, such as learned irrelevance, latent inhibition, and the US preexposure effect, would also be observed in the SIP paradigm. The results indicated that a group given excitatory pretraining to a tone failed to develop SIP more rapidly than controls when this tone was used to signal pellet deliveries during SIP training. However, learned irrelevance, latent inhibition, and the US preexposure effect were demonstrated. Thus, these data generally support the predictions derived from the Pavlovian conditioning view of SIP.

     

Interference with ingestional aversion learning produced by preexposure to the unconditioned stimulus: Associative and nonassociative aspects

Preconditioning exposure to a lithium chloride unconditioned stimulus (US) interferes with the subsequent conditioning of a taste aversion. Multiple US preexposures produce a long-lasting or durable interference with aversion learning, whereas a single US exposure produces a transient interference effect. The present experiments demonstrate that the durable US preexposure effect is substantially reduced if the method of drug treatment (infusion versus injection of the drug into the peritoneal cavity) or the spatial cues present during drug treatment (home cage versus a distinctive environment) are changed between the preexposure and taste conditioning phases of the experiment. In contrast, these manipulations do not attenuate the proximal/transient US preexposure effect. These findings indicate that different mechanisms are responsible for the two US preexposure effects. The results are consistent with previous suggestions that the durable effects of lithium preexposure are due to associative interference produced by the exteroceptive stimuli that accompany drug administrations and indicate that the proximal/transient US preexposure effect is mediated by nonassociative mechanisms.     

Contextual Control of Latent Inhibition by the Reinforcer

Three experiments examined the contextual control of latent inhibition (LI) by the unconditioned stimulus (US) using a within-subjects conditioned suppression procedure with rats. The effect of reducing the context change produced by the introduction of the shock US was investigated by presenting this US during preexposure to the conditioned stimulus (CS). Although limited CS preexposure in the absence of the US had no impact on subsequent conditioning, preexposure in the presence of the shock retarded both excitatory and inhibitory conditioning. We conclude that the introduction of the US during the conditioning phase of a normal LI experiment can produce a contextual change that reduces the observed magnitude of LI.     

Drug-preexposure effects in flavor-aversion learning: associative interference by conditioned environmental stimuli

Previous research has documented that exposure to a drug reduces the ability of the drug to support subsequent flavor-aversion learning. The four experiments reported here examined the hypothesis that this drug-preexposure effect is due to associative interference from environmental stimuli associated with the drug effects during preexposure. When distinctive environmental stimuli (confinement in a black compartment) were present during drug preexposure, these stimuli significantly disrupted subsequent flavor-aversion learning. Furthermore, flavor conditioning was not significantly disrupted when drug preexposure occurred in the absence of salient environmental stimuli or when the previously conditioned environmental stimuli were extinguished prior to flavor conditioning. It is significant, and in contrast to other published research, that flavor conditioning was not disrupted when the distinctive cues paired with the drug during preexposure were absent at the time of the flavor-drug pairing. These results are thus consistent with results from conventional studies of stimulus blocking and suggest that associative processes can play a major role in the drug-preexposure effect.     

The Importance of Context in the US Preexposure Effect in CTA: Novel versus Latently Inhibited Contextual Stimuli

Three experiments were conducted to examine the role of novel contextual stimuli in producing the unconditioned stimulus (US) preexposure effect. Experiment 1 demonstrated that novel contextual stimuli produce a significantly stronger US preexposure effect than familiar or “latently inhibited” contextual stimuli. Moreover, subjects preexposed in the presence of latently inhibited contextual cues failed to show a significant US preexposure effect. Experiments 2 and 3 attempted to provide evidence that the addition of a single novel stimulus to the latently inhibited context would result in a significantly stronger US preexposure effect than when no such novel cue was present. Experiment 3 was able to demonstrate this effect. Results are consistent with the Rescorla–Wagner (1972) model of conditioning.     

The effects of preexposure-test and conditioning-test intervals on the magnitude of latent inhibition

Using the conditioned taste aversion paradigm, two experiments were conducted to examine the effects of the interval between preexposure and test and that between conditioning and test on the magnitude of latent inhibition. Experiment 1 revealed that the degree of latent inhibition was attenuated when rats were given a 21‐day interval between preexposure and test. It was also found that this attenuation was more marked in subjects which were given conditioning immediately after preexposure than those which were conditioned shortly before the test. Retention interval between preexposure and test was reduced to 12 days in Experiment 2, and exactly the same pattern of results as those found in Experiment 1 was obtained. These findings suggest that the memory of conditioning as well as that of preexposure decreases its retrievability after a long retention interval, although the former is more retainable than the latter.     

Analysis of the learned irrelevance effect in appetitive Pavlovian conditioning

In Experiments 1 and 2 rats received uncorrelated presentations of a light conditioned stimulus (CS) and a food unconditioned stimulus (US) on each day of a preexposure phase. Control subjects received the same number of USs during the first half of preexposure and the same number of CSs during the second. Uncorrelated preexposure retarded inhibitory conditioning. Experiment 3 showed, however, that the different patterns of US preexposure experienced by the two groups could in itself influence the course of subsequent inhibitory conditioning. When this factor was equated by restricting the uncorrelated treatment to the first half of the pre-exposure phase (Experiment 2) or by extending the control treatment throughout the phase (Experiment 4) it was found that uncorrelated preexposure retarded excitatory conditioning, but facilitated inhibitory conditioning. This outcome challenges an interpretation in terms of the concept of learned irrelevance, which predicts that uncorrelated preexposure should retard both forms of conditioning.     

Latent inhibition of US signal value.

Three experiments with rats examined the effects of preexposure to an unconditioned stimulus (US; a single food pellet) on the subsequent ability of that US to effectively signal the delivery of three food pellets during a US-US conditioning procedure. In Experiment 1, latent inhibition (LI) rats showed attenuated conditioning, compared to control (C) rats, when a single food pellet, delivered 10 minutes into a session, was followed by three additional pellets. In preexposure, one pellet had been delivered 10 minutes into each session (in group LI), or placed into the magazine at the beginning of each session (in group C). Experiment 2 showed that this effect was evident when the conditions of preexposure matched those of conditioning for group C, and Experiment 3 showed that the difference between groups LI and C was not a product of context conditioning, or latent inhibition to the noise of the feeder in group LI. Implications of these results for theories of latent inhibition are considered.     

Disrupting the conditioned stimulus preexposure effect in flavor-aversion learning: effects of interoceptive distractor manipulations

Rats exposed to a flavor prior to a conditioning trial involving that stimulus learn a significantly diminished flavor aversion relative to nonpreexposed control animals. A series of four experiments investigated the ability of the conditioned stimulus (CS) preexposure effect to be disrupted by the introduction of a distractor flavor stimulus between the preexposure and conditioning episodes. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the preexposure effect could be reduced by a distractor presented immediately following the preexposure. In Experiment 2, it was discovered that a novel distractor was more effective than a familiar distractor, even though both stimuli were sensorily equivalent. Experiment 3 further analyzed the distractor effect and demonstrated that the magnitude of disruption was more pronounced with immediate than with delayed (3 hr) distractor manipulations. Finally, Experiment 4 assessed the effects of the distractor in the absence of CS preexposure. The relation of the results from these experiments to general information theory is discussed.     

Preexposure to the CS alone,US alone,or CS and US uncorrelated: Latent inhibition,blocking by context or learned irrelevance?

Three experiments on conditioned suppression in rats examined the extent to which preexposure to the CS, the US, or uncorrelated presentations of both interfere with future conditioning. Experiment 1 suggested that the interference caused by preexposure to the US alone may result from blocking by contextual cues: signaling the US during preexposure attenuated the interference. Experiment 2 demonstrated that signaling the US by another stimulus did not attenuate the interference caused by exposure to uncorrelated presentations of CS and US. Experiment 3 replicated the results of Experiments 1 and 2 and directly compared the magnitude of these deficits. The results of these experiments imply that the effects of exposure to uncorrelated presentations of CS and US are not reducible to the sum of the effects of exposure to CS or US alone.     

Latent Inhibition of Contextual Stimuli Reduces the US Preexposure Effect in Rats

Two experiments are reported which utilized latent inhibition of contextual stimuli prior to administering unsignaled presentations of the Us in an attempt to further assess the role of contextual stimuli in the US preexposure effect. Specifically in Experiment 1, rats received either 0-, 5-, 10-, or 15-minute exposure to the context in which the unsignaled Uss were to occur (latent inhibition). Following preexposure to the US, animals were trained in a CER paradigm with a tone CS. Measures of suppression to the tone indicated that the greatest US preexposure effect occurred in the 0 group and that no US preexposure effect was evident in the 15 group. Experiment 2 includec two important control groups which were omitted in Experiment 1 (no US preexposures) and an additional dependent variable (time to initiate licking) to measure fear to contextual stimuli. These results are discussed in terms of the role context conditioning may play in US preexposure.

     

Enhanced latent inhibition in context aversion conditioning

In four experiments, we investigated the effect of giving rats exposure to a distinctive environmental context before a phase of training in which an injection of LiCl was paired with that context. The results of Experiments 1 and 2 were consistent with the possibility that such preexposure served to retard subsequent conditioning to the context (i.e., produced a latent inhibition effect). Experiments 3 and 4 demonstrated that allowing the rats to consume a novel-flavored solution during preexposure enhanced the latent inhibition effect. The relevance of these findings both for theories of latent inhibition and for the use of preexposure as a clinical intervention for the reduction of conditioned nausea in humans is considered.     

Analysis of the US-preexposure effect in flavor acceptance conditioning

In three experiments, rats received exposure to a sucrose solution followed by conditioning with a neutral flavor as the conditioned stimulus (CS) and sucrose as the unconditioned stimulus (US). In Experiments 1 and 2, some rats were given both the preexposure and the conditioning phases in a highly familiar context (the homecage), whereas other animals received both phases in a novel and distinctive context. In both cases the magnitude of the conditioning effect was reduced by preexposure to the US. Experiment 3 directly assessed the possible role of contextual cues by changing the context between the exposure phase and the conditioning phase but found no loss of the US-preexposure effect in these conditions. These results lend no support to the blocking-by-context account of the US-preexposure effect; alternative interpretations are considered.     

Latent inhibition and conditioning after preexposure to the training context

Experiment 1, using the conditioned suppression technique with rats, showed that the retardation of learning produced by prior exposure to a stimulus (latent inhibition) was more marked in subjects given an initial phase of preexposure to the training context. This effect was confirmed and extended in Experiment 2 in which an appetitive conditioning procedure was used. Experiments 3 and 4, again using conditioned suppression, found no effect of preexposure to the context on the acquisition of suppression when training was given with a novel stimulus, either immediately after preexposure or after a delay; but context preexposure was again found to be effective when exposure to the to-be-conditioned stimulus was given in the delay interval between context preexposure and conditioning. The implications of these findings for accounts of the role of contextual factors in latent inhibition are discussed.     

Conditioned taste aversion is enhanced when the unconditioned stimulus is presented in a different context

Using a conditioned taste aversion procedure with rats as the subjects, two experiments examined the effect of presenting a conditioned stimulus (CS saccharin solution) in one context followed by an unconditioned stimulus (US LiCl) in a different context. Experiment 1 showed that animals which received the above-mentioned procedure (Group D) showed a more marked conditioned aversion to the CS than animals which were given both the CS and the US in the same context (Group S). Experiment 2 found that in both Group D and Group S, aversion to the CS increased when the subjects were exposed to the conditioned context after the conditioning. These findings supported the argument that the strength of the CS-US association acquired during conditioning is compared with that of the context-US to determine the magnitude of aversion revealed to the CS.     

Lithium-mediated disruptions of latent inhibition: Overshadowing by the unconditioned stimulus in flavor conditioning

In a series of experiments, the ability of a single lithium preexposure to disrupt CS effectiveness was assessed using a latent inhibition procedure. Lithium preexposure administered proximal (90 min) to a saccharin familiarization trial reduced latent inhibition whereas a similar administration more distal (360 min) to flavor familiarization failed to do so. Additional experiments demonstrated that this socalled “US overshadowing” effect was not attributable to sensitization (Experiment 2), excitatory backward conditioning (Experiment 3), or state dependency (Experiment 4). The implications of US overshadowing for proximal US-preexposure effects are discussed.