Bidirectional interactions between the circadian and reward systems: is restricted food access a unique zeitgeber?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reward is mediated by a distributed series of midbrain and basal forebrain structures collectively referred to as the brain reward system. Recent evidence indicates that an additional regulatory system, the circadian system, can modulate reward-related learning. Diurnal or circadian changes in drug self-administration, responsiveness to drugs of abuse and reward to natural stimuli have been reported. These variations are associated with daily rhythms in mesolimbic electrical activity, dopamine synthesis and metabolism, and local clock gene oscillations. Conversely, the presentation of rewards appears capable of influencing circadian timing. Rodents can anticipate a daily mealtime by the entrainment of a series of oscillators that are anatomically distinct from the suprachiasmatic nucleus. Other work has indicated that restricted access to non-nutritive reinforcers (e.g. drugs of abuse, sex) or to palatable food in the absence of an energy deficit is capable of inducing relatively weak anticipatory activity, suggesting that reward alone is sufficient to induce anticipation. Recent attempts to elucidate the neural correlates of anticipation have revealed that both restricted feeding and restricted palatable food access can entrain clock gene expression in many reward-related corticolimbic structures. By contrast, restricted feeding alone can induce or entrain clock gene expression in hypothalamic nuclei involved in energy homeostasis. Thus, under ad libitum feeding conditions, the weak anticipatory activity induced by restricted reward presentation may result from the entrainment of reward-associated corticolimbic structures. The additional induction or entrainment of oscillators in hypothalamic regulatory areas may contribute to the more robust anticipatory activity associated with restricted feeding schedules.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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".