Effects of dopamine receptor antagonism and amphetamine-induced psychomotor sensitization on sign- and goal-tracking after extended training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dopamine system is important for incentive salience attribution, where motivational value is assigned to conditioned cues that predict appetitive reinforcers. However, the role of dopamine in this process may change with extended training. We tested the effects of dopamine D1-like and D2-like receptor antagonism on the expression of sign-tracking and goal-tracking conditioned responses following extended Pavlovian conditioned approach (PCA) training. We also tested if amphetamine-induced psychomotor sensitization accelerates the enhanced acquisition of sign-tracking that is observed with extended training. In experiment 1, 24 male Long-Evans rats received 20 PCA sessions in which one lever (CS+, 10 s) predicted 0.2 mL sucrose (10%, w/v) delivery and the other lever (CS−) did not. SCH-23390 (D1-like antagonist) or eticlopride (D2-like antagonist) were administered before non-reinforced behavioural tests at doses of 0, 0.01, and 0.1 mg/kg (s.c.). In experiment 2, rats received vehicle or 2 mg/kg amphetamine (i.p.) for 7 days (n = 12/group). Ten days later, they received 16 PCA training sessions. Both doses of SCH-23390 reduced sign- and goal-tracking, but also reduced locomotor behaviour. A low dose of eticlopride (0.01 mg/kg) selectively reduced goal-tracking, without affecting sign-tracking or locomotor behaviour. Amphetamine produced psychomotor sensitization, and this did not affect the acquisition of sign- or goal-tracking. Following extended PCA training, dopamine D2-like receptor activity is required for the expression of goal-tracking but not sign-tracking. Psychomotor sensitization to amphetamine did not impact incentive salience attribution; however, more selective manipulations of the dopamine system may be needed.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".