Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/83369
|
| Title: | 飲食剝奪操弄與鋰鹽去價值程序對大白鼠舔舐行為的影響
The Effects of Food Deprivation and Lithium Chloride-Induced Devaluation on Licking Behavior |
| Authors: | 藍丞弘
Lan, Churng-Horng |
| Contributors: | 廖瑞銘
Liao, Ruey-Ming
藍丞弘
Lan, Churng-Horng |
| Keywords: | 驅力
完結行為
舔舐行為
食物剝奪
鋰鹽去價值
消除情境測試
drive
consummatory behavior
licking
food deprivation
devaluation
extinction test |
| Date: | 2000 |
| Issue Date: | 2016-03-31 16:39:07 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 本研究操弄受試的食物剝奪程度以及鋰鹽（LiCl）去價值程序，觀察此兩種實驗操弄對於大白鼠舔舐行為的影響，以探討飢餓驅力調節完結行為的機制。實驗一連續觀察8天大白鼠舔舐15%蔗糖液的表現，結果顯示初期兩天剝奪受試和自由吃食受試的舔舐表現並沒有顯著差異，第三天起剝奪組才顯著高於自由吃食組。實驗二待大白鼠習於食物剝奪狀態下舔舐15%蔗糖液之後，進行僅舔舐空管的消除情境測試。實驗結果顯示將剝奪狀態改為自由吃食，不論有無接受誘因學習都不能降低受試舔舐空管的表現。實驗三則待大白鼠習於食物剝奪狀態下舔舐25%蔗糖液之後，接受空管測試（實驗三A、B、C）與舔水消除情境測試（實驗三B、C）。實驗三結果如同實驗二，將剝奪狀態改為自由吃食，不論有無接受誘因學習都不能降低受試舔舐空管或舔水的表現。實驗四使用柳橙香料配加蔗糖液（20%）進行舔舐訓練，以僅含柳橙香料水進行消除情境測試。實驗結果顯示受試不論是由剝奪狀態轉為自由吃食，或由自由吃食轉為剝奪，都顯示出當驅力高舔舐表現高或驅力低表現低的現象。實驗五進行鋰鹽去價值實驗，大白鼠先擁有舔飲柳橙香料糖精液（實驗五A）或草莓香料食鹽水（實驗五B）的經驗後，再進行鋰鹽去價值程序。實驗結果顯示大白鼠唯有舔舐香料糖精液或香料食鹽水後接受鋰鹽注射才能降低其舔舐香料水的表現；糖精－鋰鹽配對、糖精－鋰鹽配對後再舔飲一次糖精液，以及香料水－鋰鹽配對都無法降低受試舔飲香料水的表現。糖精或食鹽水只要和鋰鹽配對過，便能產生味覺嫌惡。本研究結論如下：（1）飢餓驅力調節舔舐行為的能力只顯現在舔飲蔗糖液以及舔舐柳橙香料水的消除情境測試中；（2）香料與糖精或香料與食鹽必須同時呈現與鋰鹽配對才能降低香料引發舔舐行為的能力。
The effects of food deprivation and lithium chloride (LiCl)-induced devaluation on licking behavior were studied for the regulatory mechanism of hunger drive on licking behavior. The first experiment for measuring the licking of 15% sucrose solution for 8 days and found that deprived subjects did not lick more than non-deprived ones until the third day. In the second experiment, the rats trained to lick 15% sucrose in a food-deprivation state were shifted to a non-deprivation state and tested under extinction procedure by using the empty tube. This shift in deprivation did not suppress licking in empty tube test for subjects with or without incentive learning experiences. In the third experiment, the rats trained to lick 25% sucrose in a food-deprivation state were shifted to a non-deprivation state and tested in empty tube (Exp. 3A, B, C) or water-licking test (Exp. 3B, C) conditions. Independent of incentive learning, the shift in deprivation did not suppress licking in these two kinds of extinction conditions although the concentration of sucrose was increased. In the fourth experiment, rats were trained to lick 20% sucrose mixed with orange flavor and tested in orange flavor water-licking test condition. Deprived rats licked more than non-deprived ones in the test condition whether they were trained under deprivation or non-deprivation. In the fifth experiment, rats were trained to lick orange flavor saccharin solution (Exp. 5A) or strawberry flavor sodium chloride (NaCl) solution (Exp. 5B) and then tested by the LiCl devaluation procedure. Flavored saccharin or flavored NaCl paired with LiCl suppressed rats to lick flavored water. But none of saccharin paired with LiCl, incentive learning after saccharin devaluation, and flavored water paired with LiCl had any significant effect. Saccharin or NaCl paired with LiCl could induce taste aversion. In conclusion, hunger drive modulating licking behavior was only found in licking sucrose or the flavored water-licking test condition. Further, only flavored saccharin or flavored NaCl solutions paired with LiCl could suppress licking flavored water. |
| Reference: | 藍丞弘、廖瑞銘（民88）。驅力與溶液屬性對於氣味制約偏好的影響。第三十八屆中華心理學年會。
Balleine, B. (1992). Instrumental performance following a shift in primary motivation depends upon incentive learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 18, 236-250.
Balleine, B., & Dickinson, A. (1991). Instrumental performance following reinforcer devaluation depends upon incentive learning. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 43B, 279-296.
Balleine, B., & Dickinson, A. (1998). Consciousness: The interface between affect and cognition. In J. Cornwell (Ed), Consciousness and human identity (pp. 57-85). New York: Oxford University Press.
Bolles, R. C. (1972). Reinforcement, expectancy, and learning. Psychological Review, 95, 394-409.
Bolles, R. C. (1975). Theory of motivation. New York: Haper & Raw.
Cabanac, M. (1971). Physiological role of pleasure. Science, 173, 1103-1107.
Cabanac, M., & Lafrance, L. (1990). Postingestive alliesthesia: The rat tells the same story. Physiology & Behavior, 47, 539-543.
Colwill, R. M., & Rescorla, R. A. (1985). Postconditioning devaluation of reinforcer affects instrumental responding. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 120-132.
Davis, J., & Bitterman, M. E. (1971). Differential reinforcement of other behavior (DRO): a yoked-control comparison. Journal of The Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 15, 237-241.
Davis, J. D., & Perez, M. C. (1993). Food deprivation- and palatability-induced microstructural changes in ingestive behavior. American Journal of Physiology: Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology, 264, R97-R103.
Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. (1993). Actions and responses: the dual psychology of behaviour. In N. Eilan, R. McCarthy, & M. W. Brewer (Eds.), Spatial representation: Problems in philosophy and psychology (pp. 277-293). Oxford: Blackwell.
Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. (1994). Motivational control of goal-directed action. Animal Learning & Behavior, 22, 1-18.
Flynn, F. W., Grill, H. J., Schulkin, J., & Norgren, R. (1991). Central gustatory lesions: II. Effects on sodium appetite, taste aversion learning, and feeding behaviors. Behavioral Neuroscience, 105, 944-954.
Garcia, J. (1989). Food for Tolman: Cognition and cathexis in concert. In T. Archer & L-G. Nilsson (Eds.), Aversion, avoidance and anxiety (pp. 45-85). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Garcia, J., & Rusiniak, K. W., & Brett, L. P. (1977). Conditioning food-illness aversions in wild animals: Caveant canonici. In H. Davis, & H. M. B. Hurwitz (Eds.), Operant-Pavlovian interactions (pp. 273-316.). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gentsch, C., Lichtsteiner, M., & Feer, H. (1981). Taste neophobia in individually and socially reared male rats. Physiology and Behavior, 27, 199-202.
Hershberger, W. A. (1986). An approach through the looking-glass. Animal Learning and Behavior, 14, 443-451.
Holland, P. C. (1979). Differential effects of omission contingencies on various components of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responding in rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 178-193.
Holland, P. C., & Rescorla, R. A. (1975). The effect of two devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after first- and second-order appetitive conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 1, 355-363.
Holland, P. C., & Straub, J. J. (1979). Different effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus after Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 5, 65-78.
Hull, C. L. (1943). Principles of behavior. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Kucharski, D., & Spear, N. E. (1985). Potentiation and overshadowing in preweanling and adult rats. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 11, 15-34.
Rescorla, R. A. (1990). The role of information about the response-outcome relation in instrumental discrimination learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 16, 262-270.
Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black, & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II: Current research and theory (pp. 64-99). New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Roediger, H. L. (1990). Implicit memory: Retention without remembering. American Psychologist, 45, 1043-1056.
Rowland, N. E., Li, B. H., & Morien, A. (1996). Brain mechanisms and the physiology of feeding. In E. D. Capaldi (Ed.), Why we eat what we eat: The psychology of eating (pp. 173-204). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Schacter, D. L. (1992). Understanding implicit memory: A cognitive neuroscience approach. American Psychologist, 47, 559-569.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
Solomon, R. L. (1977). An opponent-process theory of motivation. V. Affective dynamic of eating. In L. M. Barker, M. R. Best, & M. Domjan (Eds.), Learning mechanism of food selection (pp. 255-269). Waco, TX: Baylor University Press.
Spector, A. C., Norgren, R., & Grill, H. J. (1992). Parabrachial gustatory lesions impair taste aversion learning in rats. Behavioral Neuroscience, 106, 147-161.
Tolman, E. C. (1949). There is more than one kind of learning. Psychological Review, 56, 144-155.
Wasserman, E. A., Kao, S. F., Van Hamme, L. J., Katagiri, M., & Young, M. E. (1996). Causation and association. In D. R. Shanks, D. L. Medin, & K. J. Holyoak (Eds.), The psychology of learning and motivation (Vol. 34, pp.207-264). New York: Academic Press. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
心理學系 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#A2002002140 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [心理學系] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| index.html | 0Kb | HTML2 | 312 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
