Greater sensitivity to novelty in rats is associated with increased motor impulsivity following repeated exposure to a stimulating environment: implications for the etiology of impulse control deficits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Heightened motor impulsivity and increased novelty-seeking commonly co-occur in psychiatric disorders, including drug addiction. However, the relationship between these two phenomena remains unclear. One-time tests of novelty sensitivity commonly used in preclinical experiments, such as the open-field or novel-object test, fail to capture the fact that novelty-seekers repeatedly experience novel, stimulating situations. The present study therefore investigated whether repeated exposure to a novel, stimulating environment (SE) altered impulsive action. Male Long-Evans rats were trained to perform the five-choice serial reaction time task (5CSRTT) which measures motor impulsivity in the form of premature responding as well as attention and motivation. Animals were then exposed to a novel SE (1 h/day for 16 days) immediately prior to the 5CSRTT. Significant increases in premature responding were observed in a subgroup of reactive animals termed high responders (HR-SE). These rats were not more impulsive at baseline, and levels of impulsivity normalised once exposure to the SE was discontinued. No other aspect of 5CSRTT performance was affected by the SE challenge. We also determined that HR-SE rats were hyperactive in a novel environment. Biochemical analyses revealed changes in gene and protein expression within the dorsal hippocampus of HR-SE rats, including decreases in mRNA encoding the dopamine D1 receptor and brain-derived neurotrophic factor. These results indicate a novel mechanism by which impulsivity and novelty-reactivity interact that may enhance addiction vulnerability synergistically. Furthermore, studying such context-induced impulsivity may provide insight into the process by which environmental load precipitates psychiatric symptoms in impulse control disorders.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".