Abstract
The present rat study assessed the relationship between, and the sensitivity of, two different tests for appetitive conditioned responding to differences in the contingency between a conditioned stimulus (CS) and an unconditioned stimulus (US), and to differences in US magnitude. The first test used a Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer (PIT) paradigm, assessing the capacity of the CS to enhance instrumental responding for food. The second test employed a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm with an extended CS-US interval, and total number of behavioural elements in this interval as a dependent measure. The PIT test proved to be sensitive to contingency but not reward magnitude differences, whereas the reverse was true for the Pavlovian test. Although there was a significant correlation between tests in the magnitude of the CS-induced increase of food-magazine entries, the main dependent measure from PIT (number of lever presses) and that from the Pavlovian test (total number of behavioural elements) did not correlate. It is suggested that in the PIT procedure, the CS induces a chain of behavioural responses of which lever pressing is just a single element and that the Pavlovian test, in principle, is more sensitive.
