Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31216290›Full record

ArticlePloS one2019

Conditioned taste aversion versus avoidance: A re-examination of the separate processes hypothesis.

Lindsey A Schier, Kellie M Hyde, Alan C Spector

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 16 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
16citing papers in PubMed
2.7field-weighted citation impact, top 11% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

16 citing papers in PubMed, 33 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. The antiemetic actions of GIP receptor agonism.American journal of physiology. Endocrinology and metabolism · 2024
    Review
  4. Evaluating the Presence of Disgust in Animals.Animals : an open access journal from MDPI · 2024
    Review
  5. Evaluating proxies for motion sickness in rodent.IBRO neuroscience reports · 2023
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Parabrachial Complex: A Hub for Pain and Aversion.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2019
    Review
  16. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Lindsey A SchierDepartment of Biological Sciences, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, California, United States of America.
Kellie M HydeDepartment of Psychology, Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America.
Alan C SpectorDepartment of Psychology, Program in Neuroscience, Florida State University, Tallahassee, Florida, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0001-6817-6334
Florida State University · USUniversity of Southern California · US

Funding

Chemosensory Training Program (CTP)T32DC000044 · NIDCD · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI DEBRA Ann FADOOL · 1995 to 2026
$5.3M
Translational Analyses of Ingestive Behavior After Gastric BypassR01DK106112 · NIDDK · FLORIDA STATE UNIVERSITY · PI SPECTOR, ALAN C · 2016 to 2020
$1.7M
NIDCD NIH HHS T32 DC000044NIDDK NIH HHS R01 DK106112
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rats not only avoid ingesting a substance associated with LiCl toxicosis, but they display rejection reflexes (e.g., gapes) to its taste; this latter response is thought to reflect disgust or taste aversion. Prior work has shown that rats also avoid consuming foods/fluids associated with other adverse gastrointestinal (GI) effects like lactose indigestion but without the concomitant change in oromotor responses (taste reactivity; TR) indicative of aversion. Because of interpretive limitations of the methods used in those studies, we revisited the taste aversion-avoidance distinction with a design that minimized non-treatment differences among groups. Effects on intake and preference (Experiments 1a, 1b, and 2), as well as consummatory (TR, Experiment 1a and 1b) and appetitive (Progressive Ratio, Experiment 2) behaviors to the taste stimulus were assessed after training. In both experiments, rats were trained to associate 0.2% saccharin (CS) with intraduodenal infusions of LiCl, Lactose, or NaCl control. Rats trained with 18% lactose, 0.3 and 1.5 mEq/kg dose of LiCl subsequently avoided the taste CS in post-training single-bottle intake tests and two-bottle choice tests. However, only those trained with 1.5 mEq/kg LiCl displayed post-conditioning increases in taste CS-elicited aversive TR (Experiment 1a and 1b). This dose of LiCl also led to reductions in breakpoint for saccharin. The fact that conditioned avoidance is not always accompanied by changes in other common appetitive and/or consummatory indices of ingestive motivation further supports a functional dissociation between these processes, and highlights the intricacies of visceral influences on taste-guided ingestive motivation.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalAnimalsAversive AgentsAvoidance LearningLithium ChlorideMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleySaccharinTasteTaste PerceptionAversive AgentsLithium ChlorideSaccharin

Identifiers

PMID31216290
PMCPMC6583984
OpenAlexW2951136093

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.