Flavor-postingestive consequence associations incorporate the behaviorally opposing effects of positive reinforcement and anticipated satiety: Implications for interpreting two-bottle tests

Physiology and Behavior

Volumn 60, Issue 3, 1996, Pages 711-715

  Warwick, Zoe S ^a   Weingarten, Harvey P ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND BALTIMORE COUNTY   (United States)

^b MCMASTER UNIVERSITY   (Canada)

Author keywords

Conditioning; Flavor postingestive consequence learning; Palatability; Satiety; Sham feeding; Two bottle test

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; GLUCOSE POLYMER; SUCROSE; SUGAR;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED STUDY; FEEDING BEHAVIOR; FLAVOR; INGESTION; LEARNING; MALE; NONHUMAN; PALATABILITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; SATIETY;

EID: 0030249172     PISSN: 00319384     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/S0031-9384(96)00087-X     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. 1. Ackroff, K.; Sclafani, A. Flavor preferences conditioned by intragastric infusions of dilute Polycose solutions. Physiol. Behav. 55:957-962; 1994.
2. 2. Blusk, D.; Sclafani, A. Postingestive conditioning of flavor preferences from different infusion sites. Proc. Eastern Psychol. Assoc. 64:42; 1993.
3. 3. Booth, D. A. Conditioned satiety in the rat. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 81:457-471; 1972.
4. 4. Cagan, R. H.; Maller, O. Taste of sugars: Brief exposure single-stimulus behavioral method. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 87:47-55; 1974.
5. 5. Capaldi, E. D.; Powley, T. L., eds. Taste, experience, and feeding. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1990.
6. 6. Collier, G.; Bolles, R. Some determinants of intake of sucrose solutions. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 65:379-383; 1968.
7. 7. Davis, J. D.; Perez, M. C. The acquired control of ingestive behavior in the rat by flavor-associated postingestional stimulation. Physiol. Behav. 54:1221-1226; 1993.
8. 8. Davis, J. D.; Smith, G. P. Learning to sham feed: Behavioral adjustments to loss of physiological postingestional stimuli. Am. J. Physiol. 259:R1228-R1235; 1990.
9. 9. Drucker, D. B.; Ackroff, K.; Sclafani, A. Flavor preference produced by intragastric Polycose infusions in rats using a concurrent conditioning paradigm. Physiol. Behav. 54:351-355; 1993.
10. 10. Fanselow, M. S.; Birk, J. Flavor-flavor associations induce hedonic shifts in taste preference. Anim. Learn. Behav. 10:223-228; 1982.
11. 11. Fedorchak, P. M.; Bolles, R. C. Hunger enhances the expression of calorie- but not taste-mediated conditioned flavor preferences. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Proc. 13:73-79; 1987.
12. 12. Gowans, S. E.; Weingarten, H. P. Elevations of plasma glucose do not support taste-to-postingestive consequence learning. Am. J. Physiol. 261:R1409-R1417; 1991.
13. 13. Holman, E. W. Immediate and delayed reinforcers for flavor preferences in rats. Learn. Motiv. 6:91-100; 1975.
14. 14. Mehiel, R.; Bolles, R. C. Learned flavor preferences based on calories are independent of initial hedonic value. Anim. Learn. Behav. 16:383-387; 1988.
15. 15. Messier, C.; White, N. M. Contingent and noncontingent actions of sucrose and saccharin reinforcers: Effects on taste preference and memory. Physiol. Behav. 32:195-203; 1984.
16. 16. Perez, C.; Sclafani, A. Cholecystokinin conditions flavor preferences in rats. Am. J. Physiol. 260:R179-R185; 1991.
17. 17. Richter, C. P.; Campbell, K. H. Taste thresholds and taste preferences of rats for five common sugars. J. Nutr. 20:31-46; 1940.
18. 18. Sclafani, A. Nutritionally based learned food preferences in rats. In: Capaldi, E. D.; Powley, T. L., eds. Taste, experience and feeding. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association; 1990:139-156.
19. 19. Sclafani, A.; Nissenbaum, J. W.; Ackroff, K. Learned preferences for real-fed and sham-fed Polycose in rats: Interaction of taste, postingestive reinforcement, and satiety. Physiol. Behav. 56:331-337; 1994.
20. 20. Tordoff, M. G. Metabolic basis of learned flavor preferences. In: Friedman, M. I.; Tordoff, M. G.; Kare, M. R., eds. Chemical senses: Appetite and nutrition, vol. 4. New York: Marcel Dekker, Inc.; 1991:239-260.
21. 21. Van Vort, W.; Smith, G. P. The relationships between the positive reinforcing and satiating effects of a meal in the rat. Physiol. Behav. 30:279-284; 1983.
22. 22. Warwick, Z. S.; Schiffman, S. S. Flavor-calorie relationships: Effect on weight gain in rat. Physiol. Behav. 50:465-470; 1991.
23. 23. Warwick, Z. S.; Weingarten, H. P. Dissociation of palatability and calorie effects in learned flavor preferences. Physiol. Behav. 55:501-504; 1994.
24. 24. Warwick, Z. S.; Weingarten, H. P. Dynamics of intake suppression following a preload: Role of calories, volume, and macronutrients. Am. J. Physiol. 266:R1314-R1318; 1994.
25. 25. Weingarten, H. P.; Kulikovsky, O. T. Taste-to-postingestive consequence learning: Is the rise in sham feeding with repeated experience a learning phenomenon? Physiol. Behav. 45:471-476; 1989.
26. 26. Weingarten, H. P.; Powley, T. L. A new technique for the analysis of phasic gastric acid responses in the unanesthetized rat. Lab. Anim. Sci. 30:673-680; 1980.
27. 27. Weingarten, H. P.; Watson, S. D. Sham feeding as a procedure for assessing the influence of diet palatability on food intake. Physiol. Behav. 28:401-407; 1982.