MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Prior Exposure to Salient Win-Paired Cues in a Rat Gambling Task Increases Sensitivity to Cocaine Self-Administration and Suppresses Dopamine Efflux in Nucleus Accumbens: Support for the Reward Deficiency Hypothesis of Addiction

2019· article· en· W2911152230 on OpenAlexafffund
Jacqueline‐Marie N. Ferland, Tristan Hynes, Celine Hounjet, David Lindenbach, Cole Vonder Haar, Wendy K. Adams, Anthony G. Phillips, Catharine A. Winstanley

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2019
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsCued speechPsychologyNucleus accumbensAddictionNeuroscienceReinforcementIowa gambling taskSelf-administrationCognitionDopamineCognitive psychologySocial psychologyPharmacologyMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Rats trained to perform a version of the rat gambling task (rGT) in which salient audiovisual cues accompany reward delivery, similar to commercial gambling products, show greater preference for risky options. Given previous demonstrations that probabilistic reinforcement schedules can enhance psychostimulant-induced increases in accumbal DA and locomotor activity, we theorized that performing this cued task could perpetuate a proaddiction phenotype. Significantly more rats developed a preference for the risky options in the cued versus uncued rGT at baseline, and this bias was further exacerbated by cocaine self-administration, whereas the choice pattern of optimal decision-makers was unaffected. The addition of reward-paired cues therefore increased the proportion of rats exhibiting a maladaptive cognitive response to cocaine self-administration. Risky choice was not associated with responding for conditioned reinforcement or a marker of goal/sign-tracking, suggesting that reward-concurrent cues precipitate maladaptive choice via a unique mechanism unrelated to simple approach toward, or responding for, conditioned stimuli. Although “protected” from any resulting decision-making impairment, optimal decision-makers trained on the cued rGT nevertheless self-administered more cocaine than those trained on the uncued task. Collectively, these data suggest that repeated engagement with heavily cued probabilistic reward schedules can drive addiction vulnerability through multiple behavioral mechanisms. Rats trained on the cued rGT also exhibited blunted locomotor sensitization and lower basal accumbal DA levels, yet greater cocaine-induced increases in accumbal DA efflux. Gambling in the presence of salient cues may therefore result in an adaptive downregulation of the mesolimbic DA system, rendering individuals more sensitive to the deleterious effects of taking cocaine. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Impaired cost/benefit decision making, exemplified by preference for the risky, disadvantageous options on the Iowa Gambling Task, is associated with greater risk of relapse and treatment failure in substance use disorder. Understanding factors that enhance preference for risk may help elucidate the neurobiological mechanisms underlying maladaptive decision making in addiction, thereby improving treatment outcomes. Problem gambling is also highly comorbid with substance use disorder, and many commercial gambling products incorporate salient win-paired cues. Here we show that adding reward-concurrent cues to a rat analog of the IGT precipitates a hypodopaminergic state, characterized by blunted accumbal DA efflux and attenuated locomotor sensitization, which may contribute to the enhanced responsivity to uncertain rewards or the reinforcing effects of cocaine we observed.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.347
Threshold uncertainty score0.727

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.040
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.257 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations42
Published2019
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFrench-language works237,207