Conditioned Stimulus Form Does Not Explain Failures to See Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer With Ethanol-Paired Conditioned Stimuli.

BACKGROUND

Pavlovian-Instrumental-Transfer (PIT) examines the effects of associative learning upon instrumental responding. Previous studies examining PIT with ethanol (EtOH)-maintained responding showed increases in responding following presentation of an EtOH-paired conditioned stimulus (CS). Recently, we conducted 2 studies examining PIT with an EtOH-paired CS. One of these found increases in responding, while the other did not. This less robust demonstration of PIT may have resulted from the form of the CS used, as we used a 120-second light stimulus as a CS, while the previous studies used either a 120-second auditory stimulus or a 10-second light stimulus. This study examined whether using conditions similar to our earlier study, but with either a 120-second auditory or a 10-second light stimulus as a CS, resulted in more robust PIT. We also examined the reliability of our previous failure to observe PIT.

METHODS

Three experiments were conducted examining whether PIT was obtained using (i) a 120-second light stimulus, (ii) a 10-second light stimulus, or (iii) a 120-second auditory stimulus as CSs.

RESULTS

We found PIT was not obtained using (i) a 120-second light stimulus as a CS, (ii) a 10-second light stimulus as a CS, or (iii) a 120-second auditory stimulus as a CS.

CONCLUSIONS

These results suggest that CS form does not account for our earlier failure to see PIT. Rather, factors like rat strain or how EtOH drinking is induced may account for when PIT is or is not observed.