ArticlePhysiology & behavior2017
Lactose malabsorption and taste aversion learning.
Article in Physiology & behavior, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
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
4 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Further characterization of the effect of the prototypical antidepressant imipramine on the microstructure of licking for sucrose.PloS one · 2021Article
- Daily memantine treatment blunts hedonic response to sucrose in rats.Psychopharmacology · 2020Article
- The Functional and Neurobiological Properties of Bad Taste.Physiological reviews · 2019Review
- Conditioned taste aversion versus avoidance: A re-examination of the separate processes hypothesis.PloS one · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Consumption of foods can be suppressed by two feeding system defense mechanisms: conditioned taste aversion (CTA) or taste avoidance learning (TAL). There is a debate in the literature about which form of intake suppression is caused by various aversive stimuli. For instance, illness-inducing stimuli like lithium chloride are the gold standard for producing CTA and external (or peripheral) painful stimuli, such as footshock, are the traditional model of TAL. The distinction between CTA and TAL, which have identical effects on intake, is based on differential effects on palatability. That is, CTA involves a decrease in both intake and palatability, whereas TAL suppresses intake without influencing palatability. We evaluated whether lactose, which causes gastrointestinal pain in adult rats, produces CTA or TAL. Using lick pattern analysis to simultaneously measure intake and palatability (i.e., lick cluster size and initial lick rate), we found that pairing saccharin with intragastric infusions of lactose suppressed both the intake and palatability of saccharin. These results support the conclusion that gastrointestinal pain produced by lactose malabsorption produces a CTA, not TAL as had previously been suggested. Furthermore, these findings encourage the view that the CTA mechanism is broadly tuned to defend against the ingestion of foods with aversive post-ingestive 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.