A BRIEF OPPORTUNITY TO RUN DOES NOT FUNCTION AS A REINFORCER FOR MICE SELECTED FOR HIGH DAILY WHEEL‐RUNNING RATES
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mice from replicate lines, selectively bred based on high daily wheel-running rates, run more total revolutions and at higher average speeds than do mice from nonselected control lines. Based on this difference it was assumed that selected mice would find the opportunity to run in a wheel a more efficacious consequence. To assess this assumption within an operant paradigm, mice must be trained to make a response to produce the opportunity to run as a consequence. In the present study an autoshaping procedure was used to compare the acquisition of lever pressing reinforced by the opportunity to run for a brief opportunity (i.e., 90 s) between selected and control mice and then, using an operant procedure, the effect of the duration of the opportunity to run on lever pressing was assessed by varying reinforcer duration over values of 90 s, 30 min, and 90 s. The reinforcement schedule was a ratio schedule (FR 1 or VR 3). Results from the autoshaping phase showed that more control mice met a criterion of responses on 50% of trials. During the operant phase, when reinforcer duration was 90 s, almost all control, but few selected mice completed a session of 20 reinforcers; however, when reinforcer duration was increased to 30 min almost all selected and control mice completed a session of 20 reinforcers. Taken together, these results suggest that selective breeding based on wheel-running rates over 24 hr may have altered the motivational system in a way that reduces the reinforcing value of shorter running durations. The implications of this finding for these mice as a model for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) are discussed. It also is proposed that there may be an inherent trade-off in the motivational system for activities of short versus long duration.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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".