ArticleChemical senses2011
Ontogenetic differences in sensitivity to LiCl- and amphetamine-induced taste avoidance in preweanling rats.
Article in Chemical senses, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
When amphetamine is associated with a tastant conditioned stimulus, rats learn to avoid the taste even when employing doses that promote conditioned place preference. One hypothesis raised to account for this effect proposes that taste avoidance induced by amphetamine may be motivated by fear. A sensitive period has been identified in the rat (until postnatal day 10) in which infants learn conditioned appetitive effects to stimuli to which aversions are conditioned after this period. Exogenous administration of corticosterone within this period reverses this effect, generating aversive conditioning. In the present study, we tested conditioning of aversions to amphetamine or LiCl, within and after the sensitive period (Experiments 1 and 2). A third experiment evaluated unconditioned rejection of an aversive quinine solution within the sensitive period. Finally, we tested whether corticosterone administration before conditioning modulates amphetamine-induced taste avoidance. After the sensitive period, infant rats rejected the solution paired with amphetamine or LiCl after 2 conditioning trials, but within the sensitive period, aversions were conditioned only by LiCl and after 4 conditioning trials. Amphetamine-induced taste avoidance was not observed even when corticosterone was administered before conditioning. Additionally, during the sensitive period, a low LiCl dose promoted conditioned taste preference. According to Experiment 3, parameters employed in this study were suitable to yield rejection of aversive solutions within the sensitive period. These results suggest that during the sensitive period, there is a notable resistance to the acquisition of taste avoidance induced by amphetamine. The present experimental framework may represent a useful tool for studying mechanisms underlying taste avoidance and aversion effects.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.