Cannabinoid Receptor Blockade Reduces the Opportunity Cost at Which Rats Maintain Operant Performance for Rewarding Brain Stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
There is ample evidence that blockade of CB(1) receptors reduces reward seeking. However, the reported effects of CB(1) blockade on performance for rewarding electrical brain stimulation stand out as an exception. By applying a novel method for conceptualizing and measuring reward seeking, we show that AM-251, a CB(1) receptor antagonist, does indeed decrease performance for rewarding electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle in rats. Reward seeking depends on multiple sets of variables, including the intensity of the reward, its cost, and the value of competing rewards. In turn, reward intensity depends both on the sensitivity and gain of brain reward circuitry. We show that drug-induced changes in sensitivity cannot account for the suppressive effect of AM-251 on reward seeking. Therefore, the role of CB(1) receptors must be sought among the remaining determinants of performance. Our analysis provides an explanation of the inconsistencies between prior reports, which likely arose from the following: (1) the averaging of data across subjects showing heterogeneous effects and (2) the use of methods that cannot distinguish between the different determinants of reward pursuit. By means of microdialysis, we demonstrate that blockade of CB(1) receptors attenuates nucleus accumbens dopamine release in response to rewarding medial forebrain bundle stimulation, and we propose that this action is responsible for the ability of the drug to decrease performance for the electrical reward.
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 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".