Literature DB >> 10405113

Absolute and relative rewarding properties of fructose, glucose, and saccharin mixtures as reflected in anticipatory contrast.

C F Flaherty1, C Mitchell.   

Abstract

Rats preferred 2% fructose (F) to 2% glucose (G) in daily 5-min two-bottle preference tests, but preferred 8% G to 8% F with the same testing procedure. In four subsequent experiments brief (3 min) once-per-day sequential presentations of two F or two G solutions showed the following results. Anticipatory negative contrast (suppressed intake of the initial solution) was greater with quantitative variations in fructose (2% F followed by either 8, 16, or 32% F) than was the case when the same concentrations of G were paired. No contrast occurred with qualitative pairings of the two sugars--instead G enhanced the intake of F whether it was presented before or after F. A solution of 0.15% saccharin produced more suppression (contrast) of 2% glucose than of 2% fructose. Also, mixtures of 0.15% saccharin with either sugar (2 or 8% F or G) enhanced absolute intake of the sugars but did not substantially increase their contrast-producing properties--suggesting a distinction between absolute and relative rewarding properties of sugar/saccharin mixtures. In summary, anticipatory negative contrast can be produced by either taste or postingestive factors but the relationship between two-bottle preference, absolute reward value (as reflected in consumption in noncontrast conditions), and relative reward value (measured by the capacity to produce contrast) is complex.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1999        PMID: 10405113     DOI: 10.1016/s0031-9384(99)00047-5

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Physiol Behav        ISSN: 0031-9384


  7 in total

1.  CAST/EiJ and C57BL/6J Mice Differ in Their Oral and Postoral Attraction to Glucose and Fructose.

Authors:  Anthony Sclafani; Austin S Vural; Karen Ackroff
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2017-03-01       Impact factor: 3.160

2.  Taste responsiveness to sweeteners is resistant to elevations in plasma leptin.

Authors:  John I Glendinning; Amanda E T Elson; Salina Kalik; Yvett Sosa; Christa M Patterson; Martin G Myers; Steven D Munger
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2015-03-04       Impact factor: 3.160

3.  Experience Informs Consummatory Choices for Congruent and Incongruent Odor-Taste Mixtures in Rats.

Authors:  Kelsey A McQueen; Kelly E Fredericksen; Chad L Samuelsen
Journal:  Chem Senses       Date:  2020-05-29       Impact factor: 3.160

4.  Taste does not determine daily intake of dilute sugar solutions in mice.

Authors:  J I Glendinning; F Beltran; L Benton; S Cheng; J Gieseke; J Gillman; H N Spain
Journal:  Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol       Date:  2010-08-11       Impact factor: 3.619

5.  Gustatory insular cortex lesions disrupt drug-induced, but not lithium chloride-induced, suppression of conditioned stimulus intake.

Authors:  Rastafa I Geddes; Li Han; Anne E Baldwin; Ralph Norgren; Patricia S Grigson
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2008-10       Impact factor: 1.912

6.  Dissociating the effects of dopamine D2 receptors on effort-based versus value-based decision making using a novel behavioral approach.

Authors:  Matthew R Bailey; Eileen Chun; Elke Schipani; Peter D Balsam; Eleanor H Simpson
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.912

7.  Predictive and motivational factors influencing anticipatory contrast: A comparison of contextual and gustatory predictors in food restricted and free-fed rats.

Authors:  Jessica Hayes; Celia Garau; Giulia Chiacchierini; Gonzalo P Urcelay; James E McCutcheon; John Apergis-Schoute
Journal:  Physiol Behav       Date:  2021-09-23
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.