Effect of CS preexposure on the conditioned ejaculatory preference of the male rat: behavioral analyses and neural correlates
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Early experiences with sexual reward play a pivotal role in the formation of sexual behavior and partner preference. Associations of salient partner cues, or even neutral cues on a partner, with sexual reward states are a product of Pavlovian learning. However, the extent to which first experiences that associate a neutral stimulus with no immediate consequence, and how that association may affect subsequent associability after being paired with a sexual reward state after copulation to ejaculation, remains unclear. To address this question, sexually naïve males were preexposed over one or five trials to almond scented gauze pads prior to training during which half of the males were trained 10 times with scented receptive females, and the other half with unscented receptive females. A final test of partner preference was conducted in a large open field containing two sexually receptive females, one scented and the other unscented. Males developed a conditioned ejaculatory preference for the type of female they were trained with, except when they were preexposed five times to the odor and then trained with females bearing the same odor, indicating a significant CS preexposure effect. One CS preexposure was not sufficient to inhibit subsequent conditioning. Exposure to the scent before perfusion for inmunohistochemistry, revealed different patterns of brain activation in brain areas previously associated with the development of partner preference, like the medial preoptic area, ventral tegmental area, nucleus accumbens, basolateral amygdala, among others, depending on group membership. Thus, CS preexposure results in a subsequent impairment of the association that links the odor cue to sexual reward and preference. This highlights the impact of the first sexual experiences in future partner preference.
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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".