Contextual control of the retardation of flavour aversion learning by preexposure to the unconditioned stimulus: Acquisition or retrieval deficit?

• Published in: Behavioural processes Vol. 188; p. 104394
• Main Authors: de Brugada, Isabel, González, Felisa, Cándido, Antonio, Hall, Geoffrey
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: Netherlands Elsevier B.V 01-07-2021
• Subjects: Acquisition or retrieval theory; Context; Injection-cues; Taste aversion; US-preexposure effect; Context; Taste aversion; US-preexposure effect; Injection-cues; Acquisition or retrieval theory
• ISSN: 0376-6357; 1872-8308
• DOI: 10.1016/j.beproc.2021.104394

•The US-preexposure effect, was attenuated with a context shift between preexposure and conditioning.•The context shift was without effect when it occurred between conditioning and test.•These results are consistent with an interpretation of the US-preexposure effect in terms of acquisition deficit of the target association.•They provide no support for the suggestion that the US-preexposure effect depends on retrieval deficit at the test stage.
Two experiments, using rats as the subjects, and flavour aversion learning with an injection of lithium chloride (LiCl) as the unconditioned stimulus (US), examined the effects of a context shift between phases of the procedure on the retardation of learning produced by preexposure to the US. Experiment 1 showed that the US-preexposure effect (the reduction in the size of the conditioned aversion) was not attenuated when the animals were given both preexposure to the US and the conditioning procedure in a novel context but received the test phase in a different context (the home cages). Experiment 2 showed that, after degrading the injection cues–illness association by interpolating saline injections between LiCl preexposures, the US-preexposure effect was attenuated when there was a context shift between preexposure and conditioning, but that the context shift was without effect when it occurred between conditioning and test. These results are consistent with the proposal that US preexposure obtained in this procedure has its effect by interfering with the formation of the target association; they provide no support for the suggestion that the effect depends on interference at the test stage.