Progressive-ratio Responding for Palatable High-fat and High-sugar Food in Mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foods that are rich in fat and sugar significantly contribute to over-eating and escalating rates of obesity. The consumption of palatable foods can produce a rewarding effect that strengthens action-outcome associations and reinforces future behavior directed at obtaining these foods. Increasing evidence that the rewarding effects of energy-dense foods play a profound role in overeating and the development of obesity has heightened interest in studying the genes, molecules and neural circuitry that modulate food reward. The rewarding impact of different stimuli can be studied by measuring the willingness to work to obtain them, such as in operant conditioning tasks. Operant models of food reward measure acquired and voluntary behavioral responses that are directed at obtaining food. A commonly used measure of reward strength is an operant procedure known as the progressive ratio (PR) schedule of reinforcement. In the PR task, the subject is required to make an increasing number of operant responses for each successive reward. The pioneering study of Hodos (1961) demonstrated that the number of responses made to obtain the last reward, termed the breakpoint, serves as an index of reward strength. While operant procedures that measure changes in response rate alone cannot separate changes in reward strength from alterations in performance capacity, the breakpoint derived from the PR schedule is a well-validated measure of the rewarding effects of food. The PR task has been used extensively to assess the rewarding impact of drugs of abuse and food in rats (e.g., 6-8), but to a lesser extent in mice. The increased use of genetically engineered mice and diet-induced obese mouse models has heightened demands for behavioral measures of food reward in mice. In the present article we detail the materials and procedures used to train mice to respond (lever-press) for a high-fat and high-sugar food pellets on a PR schedule of reinforcement. We show that breakpoint response thresholds increase following acute food deprivation and decrease with peripheral administration of the anorectic hormone leptin and thereby validate the use of this food-operant paradigm in mice.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.006 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.009 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.007 | 0.004 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".