MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dopamine D<sub>3</sub>Receptors Modulate the Ability of Win-Paired Cues to Increase Risky Choice in a Rat Gambling Task

2016· article· en· W2335309699 on OpenAlexafffund
Michael M. Barrus, Catharine A. Winstanley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsDopamineTask (project management)PsychologyNeuroscienceReceptorDopamine receptorCognitive psychologyBiologyGeneticsEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Similar to other addiction disorders, the cues inherent in many gambling procedures are thought to play an important role in mediating their addictive nature. Animal models of gambling-related behavior, while capturing dimensions of economic decision making, have yet to address the impact that these salient cues may have in promoting maladaptive choice. Here, we determined whether adding win-associated audiovisual cues to a rat gambling task (rGT) would influence decision making. Thirty-two male Long-Evans rats were tested on either the cued or uncued rGT. In these tasks, animals chose between four options associated with different magnitudes and frequencies of reward and punishing time-out periods. As in the Iowa Gambling Task, favoring options associated with smaller per-trial rewards but smaller losses and avoiding the tempting "high-risk, high-reward" decks maximized profits. Although the reinforcement contingencies were identical in both task versions, rats' choice of the disadvantageous risky options was significantly greater on the cued task. Furthermore, a D3 receptor agonist increased choice of the disadvantageous options, whereas a D3 antagonist had the opposite effects, only on the cued task. These findings are consistent with the reported role of D3 receptors in mediating the facilitatory effects of cues in addiction. Collectively, these results indicate that the cued rGT is a valuable model with which to study the mechanism by which salient cues can invigorate maladaptive decision making, an important and understudied component of both gambling and substance use disorders. Significance statement: We used a rodent analog of the Iowa Gambling Task to determine whether the addition of audiovisual cues would affect choice preferences. Adding reward-concurrent cues significantly increased risky choice. This is the first clear demonstration that reward-paired cues can bias cost/benefit decision making against a subject's best interests in a manner concordant with elevated addiction susceptibility. Choice on the cued task was uniquely sensitive to modulation by D3 receptor ligands, yet these drugs did not alter decision making on the uncued task. The relatively unprecedented sensitivity of choice on the cued task to D3-receptor-mediated neurotransmission data suggest that similar neurobiological processes underlie the ability of cues to both bias animals toward risky options and facilitate drug addiction.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.042
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.258 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations101
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207