Sclafani Anthony
Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College of the City University of New York, Brooklyn, NY 11210, USA.
Physiol Behav. 2002 Aug;76(4-5):633-44. doi: 10.1016/s0031-9384(02)00785-0.
In confirmation of prior work, rats given one-bottle training with flavored 5% and 30% sucrose solutions (CS5 and CS30) strongly preferred the CS5 when both flavors were presented in intermediate 17.5% sucrose solutions. The CS5 preference has been attributed to a conditioned satiety response to the CS30 flavor, but equal intakes of CS5 and CS30 in one-bottle tests did not support this view. To determine if sweetness differences between training and test solutions contributed to the CS5 preference, new rats were trained and tested with flavored 10% sucrose solutions. One flavor (CS5) was paired with matched intragastric (ig) water infusions (=net 5% solution) and another flavor (CS30) was paired with matched infusions of 50% sucrose (=net 30% solution) during one-bottle training. In two-bottle tests with both flavors paired with an intermediate infusion (25%=net 17.5%), the rats initially showed no overall preference for the CS5 or CS30. Following additional training, the rats significantly preferred the CS30 to the CS5. The intragastric data suggested that a change in sweet taste context between training and testing might have accounted for the strong CS5 preference obtained in the first experiment. This was confirmed in a third experiment in which rats were trained with flavored 5% and 30% sucrose solutions and then given two-bottle tests with both flavors presented either in 5% sucrose or 30% sucrose. Rats tested with 30% sucrose strongly preferred the CS5 flavor, whereas rats tested with 5% sucrose significantly preferred the CS30 flavor. Thus, the outcome of two-bottle flavor preference tests and presumably other tests of conditioned flavor reward may be greatly influenced by the solutions used in the tests. The impact of this variable may be greatest when the training solutions do not substantially differ in their net postingestive reinforcing actions. This appears to be the case with 5% and 30% sucrose solutions because the satiating effect of the concentrated solution tends to counteract its nutrient reinforcing action.
为了证实之前的研究结果,用加味5%和30%蔗糖溶液(CS5和CS30)进行单瓶训练的大鼠,当两种味道都出现在中间浓度17.5%的蔗糖溶液中时,强烈偏好CS5。CS5偏好被归因于对CS30味道的条件性饱腹感反应,但在单瓶测试中CS5和CS30的摄入量相等并不支持这一观点。为了确定训练溶液和测试溶液之间的甜度差异是否导致了CS5偏好,对新的大鼠用加味10%蔗糖溶液进行训练和测试。在单瓶训练期间,一种味道(CS5)与匹配的胃内(ig)水输注(=净5%溶液)配对,另一种味道(CS30)与匹配的50%蔗糖输注(=净30%溶液)配对。在双瓶测试中,两种味道都与中间输注(25%=净17.5%)配对,大鼠最初对CS5或CS30没有总体偏好。经过额外训练后,大鼠对CS30的偏好明显高于CS5。胃内数据表明,训练和测试之间甜味背景的变化可能解释了在第一个实验中获得的强烈的CS5偏好。这在第三个实验中得到了证实,在该实验中,大鼠用加味5%和30%蔗糖溶液进行训练,然后进行双瓶测试,两种味道分别以5%蔗糖或30%蔗糖呈现。用30%蔗糖测试的大鼠强烈偏好CS5味道,而用5%蔗糖测试的大鼠明显偏好CS30味道。因此,双瓶味道偏好测试的结果以及可能的其他条件性味道奖励测试可能会受到测试中使用的溶液的极大影响。当训练溶液在其净摄入后强化作用方面没有实质性差异时,这个变量的影响可能最大。5%和30%蔗糖溶液似乎就是这种情况,因为浓缩溶液的饱腹感效应往往会抵消其营养强化作用。