A Procedure for Studying the Footshock-Induced Reinstatement of Cocaine Seeking in Laboratory Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The most insidious aspect of drug addiction is the high propensity for relapse. Animal models of relapse, known as reinstatement procedures, have been used extensively to study the neurobiology and phenomenology of relapse to drug use. Although procedural variations have emerged over the past several decades, the most conventional reinstatement procedures are based on the drug self-administration (SA) model. In this model, an animal is trained to perform an operant response to obtain drug. Subsequently, the behavior is extinguished by withholding response-contingent reinforcement. Reinstatement of drug seeking is then triggered by a discrete event, such as an injection of the training drug, re-exposure to drug-associated cues, or exposure to a stressor. Reinstatement procedures were originally developed to study the ability of acute non-contingent exposure to the training drug to reinstate drug seeking in rats and monkeys. Reinstatement procedures have since been modified to study the role of environmental stimuli, including drug-associated cues and exposure to various forms of stress, in relapse to drug seeking. Over the past 15 years, a major focus of the reinstatement literature has been on the role of stress in drug relapse. One of the most commonly used forms of stress for studying this relationship is acute exposures to mild, intermittent, electric footshocks. The ability of footshock stress to induce reinstatement of drug seeking was originally demonstrated by Shaham and colleagues (1995) in rats with a history of intravenous heroin SA(5). Subsequently, the effect was generalized to rats with histories of intravenous cocaine, methamphetamine, and nicotine SA, as well as oral ethanol SA. Although footshock-induced reinstatement of drug seeking can be achieved reliably and robustly, it is an effect that tends to be sensitive to certain parametrical variables. These include the arrangement of extinction and reinstatement test sessions, the intensity and duration of footshock stress, and the presence of drug-associated cues during extinction and testing for reinstatement. Here we present a protocol for footshock-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking that we have used with consistent success to study the relationship between stress and cocaine seeking.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".