Uncertainty exposure causes behavioural sensitization and increases risky decision-making in male rats: toward modelling gambling disorder
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: An animal model of gambling disorder, previously known as pathological gambling, could advance our understanding of the disorder and help with treatment development. We hypothesized that repeated exposure to uncertainty during gambling induces behavioural and dopamine (DA) sensitization - similar to chronic exposure to drugs of abuse. Uncertainty exposure (UE) may also increase risky decision-making in an animal model of gambling disorder. METHODS: Male Sprague Dawley rats received 56 UE sessions, during which animals responded for saccharin according to an unpredictable, variable ratio schedule of reinforcement (VR group). Control animals responded on a predictable, fixed ratio schedule (FR group). Rats yoked to receive unpredictable reward were also included (Y group). Animals were then tested on the Rat Gambling Task (rGT), an analogue of the Iowa Gambling Task, to measure decision-making. RESULTS: Compared with the FR group, the VR and Y groups experienced a greater locomotor response following administration of amphetamine. On the rGT, the FR and Y groups preferred the advantageous options over the risky, disadvantageous options throughout testing (40 sessions). However, rats in the VR group did not have a significant preference for the advantageous options during sessions 20-40. Amphetamine had a small, but significant, effect on decision-making only in the VR group. After rGT testing, only the VR group showed greater hyperactivity following administration of amphetamine compared with the FR group. LIMITATIONS: Reward uncertainty was the only gambling feature modelled. CONCLUSION: Actively responding for uncertain reward likely sensitized the DA system and impaired the ability to make optimal decisions, modelling some aspects of gambling disorder.
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".