John D. Batson

The present research demonstrates a conditioning order effect difference: Odor-aversion conditioning is stronger following OT+/O+ conditioning than following O+/OT+ conditioning with specific odor (O) and taste (T) cues. When a weak odor cue was used in Experiments 1A and 1B, OT+/O+ conditioning produced significantly stronger odor aversions than did either O+/OT+ or O+/O+ conditioning, which did not differ. The same design was used in Experiment 2 with a strong odor, but the order effect difference was not replicated, suggesting that the order effect difference is specific to conditions that produce taste-potentiated odor aversions. The interpretation that O+/OT+ conditioning is weaker because of the absence of a taste-odor within-compound association was not supported in Experiments 3 and 4. Notably, using stimuli that supported potentiation in earlier experiments, in Experiment 4, we found evidence of a taste-odor within-compound association in the absence of potentiation. These results confirm that previous theories of potentiation (within-compound association model, sensory-and-gate channeling model) are not sufficient to produce potentiation. Instead, these results are interpreted in terms of taste-odor configural associations.

On the basis of previous work that has shown a taste can potentiate odor-aversion conditioning in AX+ conditioning, 6 experiments used rats to examine the effects of pairing a preconditioned taste (A) with a novel odor cue (X) in an A+/AX+ aversion conditioning design. Experiments 1A and 1B demonstrated that a preconditioned taste produced a robust odor aversion that was significantly stronger than a potentiated odor aversion. The results of Experiment 2 showed that the robust odor aversion produced by A+/AX+ conditioning was not the result of the potentiated odor aversion summating with generalization from the taste aversion. The augmented odor aversion was produced only when the taste and odor stimuli were presented simultaneously (Experiment 3) and the preconditioned taste aversion was intact at compound conditioning (Experiment 4). Pairing a novel odor with a preconditioned taste was not sufficient to condition an aversion to odor (Experiment 5), although other results implicated a role for an association between odor and taste in the odor augmentation effect (Experiment 6). The present results have implications for current models of taste + odor interactions in flavor-aversion conditioning.

Five experiments explored facilitated taste-aversion conditioning (odor-mediated taste augmentation), using rats that experienced odor (A) and taste (X) in an A+/AX+ design. Augmentation occurred when the stimuli were presented simultaneously during AX+ conditioning, and significantly weaker conditioning occurred after a sequential presentation (Experiment 1). Experiments 2 and 3 demonstrated that augmented conditioning decreased if the odor aversion was reduced through preexposure or extinction following A+ conditioning. A second-order conditioning explanation was not supported by the results of Experiment 4. Experiment 5 showed that extinction of the odor aversion after AX+ conditioning did not alter the strength of the augmented taste aversion. Odor-mediated taste augmentation is similar to potentiation, in which odor and taste cues operate in a synergistic, not competitive, manner.