Biomedical subjects

Karen Ackroff

Publications and source records attributed to Karen Ackroff.

14 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Energy density and macronutrient composition determine flavor preference conditioned by intragastric infusions of mixed diets.

In prior studies rats preferred a flavor (CS+HF) paired with intragastric (IG) infusions of a high-fat diet to a flavor (CS+HC) paired with a high-carbohydrate diet, yet just the opposite preference was observed with pure-nutrient infusions. The present study tested the hypothesis that variations in nutrient density as well as composition influence flavor learning. Animals were trained (22 h/day) with IG infusion of milk-based high-fat and high-carbohydrate liquid diets paired with intakes of flavored, noncaloric CS+ solutions. A third flavor, the CS-, was paired with water infusion. Standard chow was available ad libitum. The rats preferred both CS+ flavors to the CS-, whether the infused diets were dense (HF and HC, 2.1 kcal/ml) or dilute (hf and hc, 0.5 kcal/ml), indicating that all diet infusions were reinforcing. They consumed the CS+hc and CS+hf equally in training, and preferred the CS+hc, showing that at low-energy density carbohydrate was more reinforcing than fat. In contrast, CS+HF intake exceeded that of CS+HC in training, and the rats preferred the CS+HF to the CS+HC. In further tests the rats preferred the CS+HF to the CS+hc, the CS+HF to the CS+hf, and the CS+HC to the CS+hc; i.e., when the diets differed in energy density the flavors associated with the more concentrated infusions were preferred. In the absence of influence by flavor cues from the nutrients themselves, rats' preferences for flavors associated with diets high in fat or carbohydrate are dependent on energy density. The differential satiating effects of fat and carbohydrate may contribute to these density-dependent preferences.

Animal Feed↗

PubMed2006

Nutrient-conditioned flavor preference and incentive value measured by progressive ratio licking in rats.

Rats develop strong preferences for flavors associated with the postingestive actions of glucose and other nutrients. This preference may involve changes in both the hedonic appeal and incentive salience of the nutrient-paired flavor. The present study used a progressive ratio (PR) operant licking task to evaluate the degree to which nutrient conditioning changes the incentive value of flavors. Food restricted rats were trained to associate one flavored saccharin solution (CS+) with intragastric glucose infusions and another flavored solution (CS-) with water infusions. The rats subsequently showed a strong preference for the CS+ in two-bottle tests and also licked more for the CS+ than CS- in PR tests. PR licking for the CS+ was similar to that for an 8% fructose solution. Together with earlier data indicating that the CS- is isopreferred to a 3% fructose solution, these findings indicate that IG glucose conditioning enhances the hedonic and incentive value of the CS+ solution so that the animal responds as if the solution had a sweeter taste.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Flavor preference conditioning as a function of fat source.

Rats learn to prefer foods based, in part, on postingestive nutrient actions. This study compared the effectiveness of intragastric (IG) infusions of fat emulsions which varied in their fatty acid composition (chain length and saturation) to condition preferences for flavored saccharin solutions. In Experiment 1, food-restricted rats were trained (30 min/day) with one flavor (CS+CO) paired with IG corn oil (CO) and a second flavor (CS+MCT) paired with IG medium chain triglyceride (MCT); the fats were prepared as isocaloric emulsions. A third flavor (CS-) was paired with IG water. The rats subsequently showed a strong preference for the CS+CO (84%) and a weaker preference for the CS+MCT (65%) relative to the CS-. In a direct choice test, the CS+CO was preferred to the CS+MCT by 75%. In Experiment 2, new rats trained with flavors paired with IG corn oil and beef tallow (BT) infusions learned to prefer both the CS+CO (89%) and the CS+BT (82%) relative to the CS-, and preferred the CS+CO to the CS+BT by 67%. The same rats were trained with three new flavors paired with IG infusions of corn oil, vegetable shortening (VS), and water. The rats strongly preferred both the CS+CO (91%) and CS+VS (86%) over the CS-, and they preferred the CS+CO to the CS+VS by 64%. In Experiment 3, new rats trained with corn oil and safflower oil (SO) paired flavors preferred both the CS+CO and CS+SO to the CS-, and equally preferred the CS+CO and CS+SO in two-bottle tests. The rats were also given one-and two-bottle tests with the various fat emulsions and their preference profile was consistent with their conditioned preferences for the flavored saccharin solutions. These findings demonstrate that many different fat sources can condition flavor preferences. Fats with high polyunsaturated content and/or lower saturated fat content are the most reinforcing.

Animals↗

PubMed2005

Flavor preferences conditioned by intragastric nutrient infusions in food restricted and free-feeding rats.

The role of deprivation state in flavor preference conditioning by nutrients was investigated in rats fitted with intragastric (IG) catheters. In different experiments, food restricted (FR) and food ad libitum (AL) groups were trained to drink one flavored solution (CS+) paired with IG infusions of maltodextrin, corn oil, or casein and another flavored solution (CS-) paired with IG water infusions. Training intakes of the CS solutions were limited to equate the exposure of the FR and AL groups. The IG nutrient infusions conditioned flavor preferences in FR and AL groups which, in three of four experiments, were of similar magnitude. Food restriction did, however, increase the overall intake of the CS+ solutions during testing. Rats trained with one CS+ while food restricted and a second CS+ while food unrestricted showed similar preferences for the two CS+ flavors. Prefeeding AL rats to satiety with chow prior to daily training sessions did not prevent them from developing a preference for a CS+ paired with IG maltodextrin. These findings indicate that the postoral actions of nutrients are reinforcing in food sated as well as hungry rats.

Analysis of Variance↗

PubMed2005

Food deprivation enhances the expression but not acquisition of flavor acceptance conditioning in rats.

The postingestive actions of nutrients condition strong flavor preferences in rats and may also enhance flavor acceptance (increase total intake) in some situations. This study determined the impact of food deprivation on flavor preference and acceptance conditioned by intragastric (i.g.) infusions of glucose. Rats fitted with gastric catheters were trained (20 h/day) to associate a CS+ solution (bitter or sour) with i.g. 16% glucose and a CS- solution with water infusions. One group (FR) was food-restricted during the training sessions, while a second group (AL) was given food ad libitum. All rats were given 2-h access to food prior to the daily sessions. During one-bottle training, the FR rats consumed substantially more CS+ than CS- whereas AL rats drank only slightly more CS+ than CS-. In additional one-bottle acceptance tests, the FR and AL rats consumed substantially more CS+ than CS- when both groups were food-restricted, but only slightly more CS+ than CS- when both groups had food ad libitum. Throughout the experiment, the FR and AL rats displayed equally strong CS+ preferences in two-bottle choice tests irrespective of their deprivation state during the test. The findings indicate that food restriction stimulates the intake of a CS+ flavor that is (or was previously) paired with i.g. glucose infusions but does not fundamentally alter the learned association between the CS+ flavor and the post-oral nutrient stimulus.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Fructose-conditioned flavor preferences in male and female rats: effects of sweet taste and sugar concentration.

Previous studies indicate that fructose postingestive reward for flavor preference learning is weaker than that of glucose. The present experiments explored the effects of several variables that modulate the response to fructose. In Experiment 1, ad libitum fed male rats were trained in 22 h sessions with one flavor (the CS+) paired with intragastric infusions of 7.18% fructose and another flavor (the CS-) paired with intragastric water infusion. Subsequent preference for the CS+ relative to the CS- was 90% with saccharin-sweetened flavors and only 67% with nonsweet flavors. Experiments 2 (males) and 3 (females) examined the effects of taste quality on conditioning with 16% fructose infusions. Males and females both preferred the sweet CS+ flavor (71-72%). In contrast, males avoided the nonsweet CS+ flavor (31%) and females were indifferent (47%). The different preference patterns were accompanied by differences in sweet and nonsweet training intakes and bout patterns, suggesting stimulation of intake with sweet flavor and 7.18% fructose, and satiating effects of 16% fructose. The sex difference in response to nonsweet flavors may reflect a greater sensitivity of male rats to fructose's postingestive satiating or aversive effects. Possible mechanisms for the sweet-taste enhancement of conditioning include increasing CS intakes in training, facilitating fructose metabolism and increasing flavor salience.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

Ethanol-conditioned flavor preferences compared with sugar- and fat-conditioned preferences in rats.

Rats can learn to prefer flavors paired with ethanol and various nutrients. The present study examined the relative strengths of flavor preferences conditioned by 5% ethanol and isocaloric solutions of 7.18% sucrose, 7.18% fructose, or 3.26% corn oil. In three experiments, nondeprived rats were trained with different flavored solutions (conditioned stimuli, CS) paired with intragastric (IG) infusions: a CS+E flavor paired with ethanol infusion, a second CS+ paired with a nutrient infusion, and a CS- paired with water infusion. In two-bottle tests, rats strongly preferred a sucrose-paired CS+S over the CS- and over the CS+E. The preference for the CS+E over CS- was weaker. These effects occurred when the rats drank substantially more CS+S than CS+E in training and when training intakes were matched. Similar results were obtained when the nutrient infusion was fructose or corn oil, except that preferences for the CS+F or CS+O over the CS+E were less pronounced than with CS+S. Consistent with the IG results, rats trained to drink flavored sucrose and ethanol solutions preferred the CS+S to CS+E in a flavored water test. These results confirm prior reports of ethanol-conditioned preferences but show that ethanol is less effective than other nutrients at isocaloric concentrations. The marked individual differences in ethanol-conditioned preferences may be related to the impact of the sugar or fat infusions on the reward evaluation of the ethanol-paired flavor.

Animals↗

PubMed2004

The relationship between food reward and satiation revisited.

The postingestive satiating action of food is often viewed as producing a positive affective state that rewards eating. However, in an early test of this idea, Van Vort and Smith [Physiol. Behav. 30 (1983) 279] reported that rats did not learn to prefer a food that was "real-fed" and satiating over a food that was "sham-fed" and not satiating. Subsequent investigators obtained similar findings with concentrated nutrient sources. With dilute nutrient sources, however, rats learned to prefer the real-fed to the sham-fed food. These and other findings demonstrate that nutrients have rewarding postingestive effects that enhance food preferences via a conditioning process. These reward effects appear separate from the satiating actions of nutrients, which may actually reduce food reward. Food intake and preference are controlled by a complex interaction of positive and negative signals generated by nutrients in the mouth and at postingestive sites.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Selective effects of vagal deafferentation and celiac-superior mesenteric ganglionectomy on the reinforcing and satiating action of intestinal nutrients.

The role of vagal afferents and splanchnic fibers in nutrient-induced flavor conditioning and feeding suppression was determined. Male rats were fitted with intraduodenal (ID) catheters and given subdiaphragmatic vagal deafferentation (SDA), celiac-superior mesenteric ganglionectomy (CGX), combined (COM) treatments, or sham surgery. In separate conditioning trials, they were trained to drink (30 min/day) flavored saccharin solutions paired with concurrent ID infusions of 8% maltodextrin or water and 3.55% corn oil or water. Experiment 1 revealed that SDA and sham rats showed equal preferences for the nutrient-paired flavors over the water-paired flavors. In contrast, SDA rats, unlike sham rats, failed to suppress their intake of a palatable fluid when infused intraduodenally with maltodextrin or corn oil. Experiment 2 revealed that CGX, COM and sham rats all developed preferences for the maltodextrin-paired flavor, although CGX alone or COM attenuated the conditioned preference. CGX and COM treatments also attenuated or blocked the feeding inhibitory actions of ID nutrient infusions. These findings along with prior data indicate that gut vagal afferents and splanchnic nerves are not essential for flavor-nutrient preference conditioning, whereas both vagal afferents and splanchnic nerves are implicated in carbohydrate- and fat-induced satiation.

Afferent Pathways↗

PubMed2003

Reinforcement value of sucrose measured by progressive ratio operant licking in the rat.

Progressive ratio (PR) schedules, which require increasing numbers of responses for successive reinforcements, are widely used to measure the reward value of foods, fluids, and drugs in operant lever-pressing tasks. The present study evaluated a PR operant licking task as a measure of sweet taste reward. In Experiment 1, food deprived rats were offered sucrose to drink on PR lick or fixed ratio (FR) lick schedules (30 min/day). In Experiment 2, nondeprived rats were offered sucrose to drink on PR or FR schedules and free access to water and food 23 h/day. In both experiments, the FR rats increased and then decreased their sucrose solution intake as concentration increased from 1% to 32% or 64%. The PR rats, in contrast, showed a near-linear increase in sucrose solution intake, lick rates, and break points (highest ratio completed) as a function of sucrose concentration. The PR rats drank less sucrose than did the FR rats although they emitted more total licks at the highest concentration tested. These results are similar to those reported with PR lever-pressing tasks. Thus, PR operant licking, which requires minimal training and equipment, is a useful alternate measure of fluid reward in rodents.

Animals↗

PubMed2003

Flavor preferences conditioned by intragastric ethanol with limited access training.

In a prior study, ad libitum fed rats learned a strong preference (90%) for a flavored saccharin solution (conditioned stimulus, CS+) paired with concurrent intragastric (IG) infusions of 5% ethanol over another flavor (CS-) paired with water infusions in unlimited access sessions (22 h/day). The present study expanded the investigation of ethanol-conditioned preferences to limited access sessions (30 min/day). Experiment 1 revealed that ad lib or food-restricted rats failed to develop a CS+ preference using the same CS solutions (0.05% Kool-Aid+0.2% saccharin) and IG infusions that were effective with long-term training. Experiments 2 and 3 mimicked the parameters from a report of successful ethanol conditioning in deprived rats: ethanol (0.5 g/kg) or water was infused intragastrically 5 min before access to sweetened CS solutions flavored with HCl or NaCl. Rats learned to prefer the ethanol-paired CS+ when the flavors were mixed with 5% sucrose but not when mixed with 0.2% saccharin. Experiment 4 revealed that 5% sucrose solutions flavored with 0.25% Kool Aid also supported flavor preference conditioning by IG ethanol (0.5 g/kg). CS+ preferences were obtained in rats trained with ethanol infused 5 min before or concurrent with CS+ intake, but not in rats trained with ethanol infused 30 min before CS+ intake. These data confirm that flavor preferences can be conditioned by IG ethanol using a limited access procedure. However, in contrast to 22 h/day training, 30 min/day training requires more intense CS flavors and a nutritive sweetener. The preference reinforcing actions of ethanol may develop slowly and are thus most effective with long training sessions or when intense CS flavors are used in short training sessions.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

"An ecological perspective": the value of species comparisons.

George Collier is known for promoting the incorporation of an ecological framework into the study of feeding behavior. He has tirelessly reminded psychologists and physiologists that the animals they study are members of species designed by evolution to solve problems of acquiring, handling and storing energy in particular ways. A less-appreciated contribution is the comparative approach within his laboratory. George and his students used laboratory simulations of foraging, but ranged far beyond the laboratory rat to examine the responses of a variety of species representing different dietary needs and foraging strategies. Species comparisons enhance our ability to test the generality of responses to challenges, apply ecological theory to the explanation of behavior, and incorporate the feeding strategy of a species in the study of its ingestive behavior.

Animal Nutritional Physiological Phenomena↗

PubMed2002

Ethanol flavor preference conditioned by intragastric carbohydrate in rats.

The unpalatable flavor of ethanol solutions greater than approximately 6% may limit their consumption by rats. We determined if ethanol flavor avoidance, like bitter or sour taste avoidance, can be reversed by intragastric (IG) carbohydrate conditioning. Ad lib fed rats drank 5% ethanol and a matched flavor (0.05% citric acid+0.5% maltodextrin, CM) on alternate days. For control rats, postingestive effects were equated: when they drank one solution they were infused IG with the other. Conditioned rats were also infused with 5% ethanol when they drank CM, but when they drank 5% ethanol they were infused with CM + 16% maltodextrin, a potent reward in flavor preference learning. In choice tests, only the conditioned rats preferred ethanol to CM; both groups preferred 5% ethanol to water. Conditioned rats but not controls preferred ethanol to water when the concentration was raised to 10%, and sustained their preference when the infusate carbohydrate was gradually removed. When ethanol concentration was gradually raised to 25%, ethanol preference declined from 48% to 30% in the control rats and from 84% to 50% in the conditioned rats. Thus, ethanol flavor avoidance can be reversed or reduced by postingestive nutritive conditioning, which may combine with the pharmacological effects of ethanol to produce the acquired appetite for the flavor of alcoholic beverages.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

Flavor quality and ethanol concentration affect ethanol-conditioned flavor preferences.

A previous report showed that outbred rats acquired preferences for a sweetened conditioned stimulus (CS) flavor paired with intragastric ethanol. To evaluate the role of sweet taste in ethanol conditioning, this study compared training with sweetened and unsweetened flavors. In Experiment 1, nondeprived rats were trained to drink one flavored solution (CS+, e.g., grape) paired with intragastric infusion of 5% ethanol and another (CS-, e.g., cherry) paired with intragastric water on alternate days. The volume of ethanol solution infused was matched to the volume of flavored solution the rats consumed. The sweet group's flavors initially contained 0.2% saccharin, reduced to 0.1%, 0.05%, and 0% over days; the plain group's flavors were unsweetened. The sweet group drank more and self-infused more ethanol during training and its preference for the CS+ over the CS- (without saccharin) exceeded that of the plain group (75% versus 62%). Experiment 2 equated total ethanol intake in rats trained with two combinations of flavor quality and ethanol concentration. The Sweet5 group drank flavors with 0.2% saccharin throughout training and tests and received 5% ethanol when they drank CS+, while the Plain10 group drank unsweetened flavors and the CS+ was paired with 10% ethanol. Despite equal daily ethanol doses, the Sweet5 group strongly preferred the CS+ (89%) while the Plain10 group avoided it (31%). The two groups continued to show opposite CS+ preference profiles even when both were tested with sweet CS flavors and 10% ethanol infusions. Thus, sweet taste contributes to the development of ethanol-conditioned flavor preferences, and this effect is not explained by a simple enhancement of ethanol intake.

Alcohol Drinking↗