Effects of sucrose concentration and water deprivation on Pavlovian conditioning and responding for conditioned reinforcement.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
An appetitive Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (CS) can predict an unconditioned stimulus (US) and acquire incentive salience. We tested the hypothesis that US intensity and motivational state of the subject would influence Pavlovian learning and impact the attribution of incentive salience to an appetitive Pavlovian CS. To this end, we examined the effects of sucrose concentration and water deprivation on the acquisition of Pavlovian conditioning and responding for a conditioned reinforcer. Male Long-Evans rats (Harlan; 220-240 g) receiving 3% (3S) or 20% (20S) sucrose were either non-water deprived or given water for 1 hr per day. During Pavlovian conditioning sessions, half the rats in each concentration and deprivation condition received a 10-s CS paired with 0.2 ml of sucrose (16 trials/session; 3.2 ml/session). The remainder received unpaired CS and US presentations. Entries into a port where sucrose was delivered were recorded. Next, responding for conditioned reinforcement was tested, wherein pressing an active lever produced the CS and pressing an inactive lever had no consequences. CS-elicited port entries increased, and latency to the first CS-elicited port entry decreased across sessions in paired groups. Water deprivation augmented these effects, whereas sucrose concentration had no significant impact on behavior. Responding for conditioned reinforcement was observed in the 20S water-deprived, paired group. Thus, water deprivation can facilitate the acquisition of Pavlovian conditioning, potentially by enhancing motivational state, and a high-intensity US and a high motivational state can interact to heighten the attribution of incentive salience to an appetitive Pavlovian CS. (PsycINFO Database Record
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 | 0.000 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 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".