Positive Reinforcement as a Function of Lipopolysaccharide Administration
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Activation of the immune system results in release of cytokines that affect memory retrieval and induces a general “sickness behavior” as depicted by decreased appetite, locomotor activity, and motivation to exert effort. Lipopolysaccharide (LPS) delivery has been commonly used to study effects of immune system activation in rats using study paradigms that assess changes in motivational behavior. Food-motivated behaviors are driven by positive reinforcement tasks, which rely on adequate memory retrieval to acquire the sought award. Previous studies determined that LPS has a negative impact on food-motivated behavior as depicted by decreased bar pressing frequency, a quantifiable parameter for operationally defining positive reinforcement. However, previous studies did not consider the role of LPS on locomotor activity on the portrayed decreased bar pressing frequency. Therefore, this study will evaluate the role of LPS administration and dose on positive reinforcement retention (through bar pressing for food release) in rats compared to NaCl treated control rats, and whether LPS has an effect on locomotor activity. It was hypothesized that an immune response via LPS delivery will affect memory retrieval in rats in the form of positive reinforcement tasks (lower bar-pressing frequencies), decreased locomotor activity via lower vertical and horizontal movements when compared to control rats. It was found that LPS-treated rats exhibit decreased locomotor activity, and bar pressing frequency compared to control rats, indicating that the decreased desire to exert effort may explain why LPS negatively impacts positive reinforcement retention.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".