Differences in locomotor response to an inescapable novel environment predict sensitivity to aversive effects of amphetamine
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Differences in locomotor response to an inescapable novel environment have previously been shown to predict sensitivity to amphetamine reward, where high responders (HR), compared to low responders (LR), showed greater initial sensitivity to amphetamine self-administration. The present experiments sought to extend these findings and assessed the relationship between locomotor response to an inescapable novel environment and conditioned taste aversion (CTA) with amphetamine and lithium chloride (LiCl). Male Sprague-Dawley rats were tested for their locomotor response to an inescapable novel environment and divided into high (HR) or low (LR) responders, based on whether their locomotor scores were above or below the median activity level of the subject sample. After several days, the animals were tested in a CTA procedure and conditioned with either amphetamine or lithium chloride. Compared to HR rats, LR rats showed greater sensitivity to amphetamine CTA at the doses tested. In contrast, the results with LiCl showed no relationship between locomotor response to an inescapable novel environment and CTA. Taken together, the present results suggest that LR, compared to HR, rats show less sensitivity to the rewarding effects of amphetamine because they are more sensitive to aversive effects of amphetamine, as reflected in CTA. In contrast, HR rats display less sensitivity to aversive effects of amphetamine, which may explain their greater propensity to self-administer amphetamine.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".