Modeling Relapse to Pavlovian Alcohol‐Seeking in Rats Using Reinstatement and Spontaneous Recovery Paradigms
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Animal models are critical for studying causal explanations of relapse. Using a Pavlovian conditioning procedure with alcohol, we examined relapse after extinction triggered by either re-exposure to alcohol (reinstatement) or a delay between extinction and test (spontaneous recovery). METHODS: Male, Long-Evans rats were acclimated to 15% alcohol in the home-cage using an intermittent-access 2-bottle choice procedure. Next, they received Pavlovian conditioning sessions in which an auditory-conditioned stimulus (CS; 20 second white noise; 8 trials/session; variable time 240 seconds) was paired with 15% alcohol (0.3 ml/CS; 2.4 ml/session) that was delivered into a fluid port for oral ingestion. In subsequent extinction and test sessions, CS presentations occurred as before, but without alcohol. RESULTS: In experiment 1, exposure to either alcohol or water in the fluid port following extinction reinstated CS-elicited port entries at test 24 hours later. In a follow-up study using the same procedure (experiment 2), reinstatement was more robustly stimulated by alcohol, compared to a familiar lemon-flavored liquid. In experiment 3, systemic alcohol injections (0, 0.5, or 1.0 g/kg, intraperitoneal) administered either 24 hours or 15 minutes before test did not reinstate CS-elicited alcohol-seeking. Importantly, enzymatic assays in experiment 4 revealed detectable levels of alcohol in the blood following oral alcohol intake or intraperitoneal injection, suggesting that a pharmacological effect was likely with either route of administration. Last, in experiment 5, a 23-day delay between extinction and test resulted in a robust spontaneous recovery of CS-elicited alcohol-seeking. CONCLUSIONS: The reinstatement and spontaneous recovery effects revealed herein provide evidence of viable new behavioral paradigms for testing interventions against relapse.
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 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".