Recent work in taste-aversion learning has revealed a new phenomenon in classical conditioning. When a preconditioned gustatory cue (taste or odor) is conditioned in compound with a second gustatory cue, conditioning to the second cue is augmented. This enhanced conditioning of the second cue is noteworthy because studies with other forms of classical conditioning have shown blocked conditioning to the second cue. This new phenomenon has been termed augmentation, and it has implications for the study of taste and odor interactions, formal models of learning, and clinical interventions with cancer patients.
BatsellW.R.Jr.BatsonJ.D. (1999). Augmentation of taste conditioning by a preconditioned odor. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 25, 374–388.
BatsonJ.D.BatsellW.R.Jr.(in press). Augmentation, not blocking, in an A+AX+ flavorconditioning procedure. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review..
4.
BoakesR.A.TarrierN.BarnesB.W.TattersallM.H.N. (1993). Prevalence of anticipatory nausea and other side-effects in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. European Journal of Cancer, 29A, 866–870.
5.
BrobergD.J.BernsteinI.L. (1987). Candy as a scapegoat in the prevention of food aversions in children receiving chemotherapy. Cancer, 60, 2344–2347.
6.
DurlachP.J.RescorlaR.A. (1980). Potentiation rather than overshadowing in flavor-aversion learning: An analysis in terms of within-compound associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 6, 175–187.
7.
GarciaJ.LasiterP.S.Bermudez-RattoniF.DeemsD.A. (1985). A general theory of aversion learning. In BravemanN.S.BronsteinP. (Eds.), Experimental assessments and clinical applications of conditioned food aversions (Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences, Vol. 443, pp. 8–21). New York: New York Academy of Sciences.
8.
GillanD.J.DomjanM. (1977). Taste-aversion conditioning with expected versus unexpected drug treatment. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 297–309.
9.
KaminL.J. (1969). Predictability, surprise, attention, and conditioning. In CampbellB.A.ChurchR.M. (Eds.), Punishment and aversive behavior (pp. 279–296. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
10.
LettB.T. (1984). Extinction of taste aversion does not eliminate taste potentiation of odor aversion in rats or color aversion in pigeons. Animal Learning & Behavior, 12, 414–420.
11.
LogueA.W. (1979). Taste aversion and the generality of the laws of learning. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 276–296.
12.
LoLordoV.M.DroungasA. (1989). Selective associations and adaptive specializations: Taste aversions and phobias. In KleinS.B.MowrerR. (Eds.), Contemporary learning theories: Instrumental conditioning theory and the impact of biological constraints on learning (pp. 145–179. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
13.
PearceJ.M.HallG. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532–552.
14.
RescorlaR.A.WagnerA.R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In BlackA.H.ProkasyW.F. (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theories (pp. 64–99. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
