scholarly journals Age differences in the outcome of long-delay taste-aversion conditioning in rats

1988 ◽  
Vol 26 (3) ◽  
pp. 258-260 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Douglas L. Greider ◽  
Charles F. Hinderliter
1995 ◽  
Vol 76 (2) ◽  
pp. 636-638 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles F. Hinderliter ◽  
James R. Misanin

Young-adult and old-adult rats were allowed to remain in the conditioning context or were returned to their home cages during a 3-hr. interval to assess whether previously observed age differences in long-delay taste-aversion conditioning may be due to age differences in the use of home-cage cues to mediate the CS-US association over a long delay. The old adults but not the young adults showed an aversion irrespective of the context in which they were detained during the interstimulus interval. These results suggest that young-adult rats do not use the interstimulus context cues to mediate the association over a delay interval. They suggest, rather, that context cues, which are more contiguous with the US than taste cues in long-delay conditioning, may be more effective in overshadowing taste cues in young adults than in old adults.


1995 ◽  
Vol 80 (2) ◽  
pp. 595-598 ◽  
Author(s):  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Charles F. Hinderliter

To evaluate whether previously observed age differences in long-delay taste aversion were due to age-related differences in the shared association of contextual cues and CS with the US, weanling, young-adult, and old-adult rats were given a NaCl or LiCl US immediately after or a LiCl US 3 hr. after a saccharin CS presentation in a black or white context. They were then given a context-preference test in a chamber which was half black and half white. Analysis showed rats, irrespective of age or conditioning context, spent a significantly smaller percentage of time on the white side than on the black side of the test chamber. These results suggest that age differences in long-delay taste-aversion conditioning are not due to age-related differences in the shared association of contextual cues and CS with the US.


2007 ◽  
Vol 105 (3_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1223-1226 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eli Minnier ◽  
James R. Misanin ◽  
Charles F. Hinderliter

1980 ◽  
Vol 25 (6) ◽  
pp. 989-992 ◽  
Author(s):  
W.F. Buskist ◽  
H.L. Miller ◽  
P. Duncan ◽  
D.E. Fleming

1976 ◽  
Vol 7 (2) ◽  
pp. 254-264 ◽  
Author(s):  
Phillip J Best ◽  
Michael R Best ◽  
Gaye P Lindsey

Peptides ◽  
1996 ◽  
Vol 17 (3) ◽  
pp. 483-488 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack T. Mosher ◽  
Michael F. Johnson ◽  
Lawrence S. Birkemo ◽  
Gregory N. Ervin

Science ◽  
1983 ◽  
Vol 220 (4593) ◽  
pp. 212-214 ◽  
Author(s):  
L. K. NICOLAUS ◽  
J. F. CASSEL ◽  
R. B. CARLSON ◽  
C. R. GUSTAVSON

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document