Spiroperidol, but not eticlopride or aripiprazole, produces gradual increases in descent latencies in the bar test in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rats repeatedly exposed to the bar test following injections with a dopamine D2-like receptor antagonist such as haloperidol show increased descent latencies, suggesting that contextual stimuli may lose their ability to elicit approach and other responses. Here, we showed that rats took progressively longer to initiate descent from a horizontal bar across sessions following daily intraperitoneal treatment (paired group) with the D2-like receptor antagonist, spiroperidol (0.125 and 0.25 mg/kg), but not in the control group that received 0.25 mg/kg in their home cage and testing following saline. When both groups were tested following an injection of spiroperidol or following saline, a sensitized and a conditioned increase in descent latency, respectively, were observed in the paired but not in the unpaired group. No evidence of sensitization or conditioning was found with the substituted benzamide compound, eticlopride (0.15-0.5 mg/kg), or the D2-like receptor partial agonist, aripiprazole (0.25-0.5 mg/kg). The different effects of these agents on learning may be related to different region-specific affinities for dopamine receptors or differences in receptor dissociation profiles. We suggest that the behavioural changes observed in spiroperidol-treated rats may reflect inverse incentive learning.
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 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".