The manuscript (ms) consisted on an experiment evaluating the role of the tension applied to a wheel running in taste aversion/preference. Previous literature in taste conditioning as shown that the access to a wheel can work as a US. Furthermore, the forwards or backwards association between a flavor and the wheel leads to different results (taste aversion in one case, taste preference on another). In this experiment, authors present a group of rats with a flavor ('before flavor') before access to the wheel, followed by access to another flavor ('after flavor'). The test showed more consumption for the 'after flavor' than 'before flavor' compared with a control flavor. 

General comment: The experiment is clear, and the results are very straightforward. The manuscript has all the good elements, it just needs some improvement in how the information is presented. 
-Several phrases need to be rephrase in order to be easy to understand. Specially in the abstract and introduction. The grammar needs to be checked. 
-The abstract needs to be rewrite because it does not account for your procedure (the preference test was not between the flavors but compared to the control one) and the results are misleading: the authors found a difference in after flavor (AF) consumption (compared with control), there is no evidence of lower consumption of before flavor (no difference between BF and control). 
- The abstract in Spanish has some typos. 
- The introduction is probably the weakest section in the manuscript. All the elements are there; it just need to be reorganized. I suggest starting with a short paragraph of taste conditioning where the authors could explain that different US have been used, such as injection, drugs, and the running wheel. Then, it could be explained the literature related to taste aversion/preference with the wheel as US, what are the main results and variables on the wheel that modulate those. Then, the experiment this ms is replicating should be explained in detail, then finishing with the final paragraph as it is (it nicely explains the objective and hypothesis). 
- There is some need for consistency when naming elements. Talking about ‘one and another flavor’, or ‘different stimuli’ can be confusing for the reader. Things like Flavor 1, Flavor 2, Chamber 1 across the ms can facilitate the understanding. 
- Previous paragraph also calls for more details in some key experiments mentioned in the introduction.
- In the result section it could enrich the discussion to add a table with the average consumption of all 3 flavors during all days of acquisition. Specially because changes on consumption could be related (or not) to the tension in the wheel. 
- Similarly, it could be useful to discuss the difference in consumption during acquisition vs test, and how that can have an effect in the results. 
- p values that are not p< .001 needs to be report with the exact p value.
- The order of the test should be assess as a factor in the result section.
- Figure 1 needs to add what the error bars mean. 
- The discussion needs to connect more with the literature presented in the introduction.
- The discussion needs to add limitations and follow up experiments. For instance, an easy way to compare with Dobek et al (2012) would be introduce their design as a control group, then we can see if first the effect is replicated and compare it with the group with high wheel’s friction. 