Attenuation of sucrose reinforcement in dopamine D<sub>1</sub> receptor deficient mice
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopaminergic systems are thought to mediate the rewarding and reinforcing effects of palatable food. However, the relative contribution of different dopamine receptor subtypes is not clear. We used dopamine D1 receptor deficient mice (D1 -/-) and their wild-type and heterozygous littermates to study the role of the D1 receptor in palatable food reinforced behaviour using operant responding and free access paradigms. Non-deprived mice were trained to press a lever for sucrose pellets under three schedules of reinforcement including fixed ratios (FR-1 and FR-4) and a progressive ratio (PR). Responding on one lever was reinforced by the delivery of a sucrose pellet or solution while responding on a second lever had no programmed consequences. Initially, D1 mutant mice took longer to learn to discriminate between the two levers and had significantly lower operant responding for sucrose pellets and solution than wild-type and heterozygous mice under all schedules of reinforcement. Food deprivation enhanced responding on the active lever in all mice although it remained significantly lower in D1 -/- mice than in control mice. Following extinction of sucrose reinforcement and reversal of the levers, D1 -/- mice showed deficits in extinguishing and reversing previously learned responses. Home cage intake and preference of sucrose pellets and solutions when given under free-choice access paradigms were similar among the groups. These results suggest that the dopamine D1 receptor plays a role in the motivation to work for reward (palatable food) but not in reward perception and is critical in learning new but relevant information and discontinuing previously learned responses.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".