Comparison of the MK-801-induced increase in non-rewarded appetitive responding with dopamine agonists and locomotor activity in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Systemic administration of the noncompetitive N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA)- receptor antagonist, MK-801, has been proposed to model cognitive deficits similar to those seen in patients with schizophrenia. Evidence has shown that MK-801 increases the probability of operant responding during extinction, possibly modeling perseveration, as would be seen in patients with schizophrenia. This MK-801-induced behavioral perseveration is reversed by dopamine receptor antagonism. To further explore the role of dopamine in this behavioral change, the current study sought to determine if the MK-801-induced increase in non-rewarded operant responding could be mimicked by dopamine agonism and determine how it was related to locomotor activity. Male Long Evans rats were treated systemically with MK-801, cocaine, GBR12909 or apomorphine (APO) and given a single trial operant extinction session, followed by a separate assessment of locomotor activity. Both MK-801 (0.05 mg/kg) and cocaine (10 mg/kg) significantly increased responding during the extinction session and both increased horizontal locomotor activity. No dose of GBR-12909 (5, 10 or 20 mg/kg) was found to effect non-rewarded operant responding or locomotor activity. APO (0.05, 0.5, 2 or 5 mg/kg) treatment produced a dose-dependent decrease in both operant responding and locomotor activity. These results suggest the possibility that, rather than a primary influence of increased dopamine concentration on elevating bar-pressing responses during extinction, other neurotransmitter systems may be involved.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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".