Comparing ABA, AAB, and ABC Renewal of Appetitive Pavlovian Conditioned Responding in Alcohol- and Sucrose-Trained Male Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Conditioned responding can be renewed by re-exposure to the conditioning context following extinction in a different context (ABA renewal) or by removal from the extinction context (AAB or ABC renewal). ABA renewal is robust in Pavlovian and operant conditioning paradigms. However, fewer studies have investigated AAB and ABC renewal of appetitive conditioning, and those that did predominantly used operant conditioning tasks. Renewal has theoretical relevance for extinction and for exposure-based treatments for substance use disorders that aim to extinguish reactivity to drug-predictive cues. We therefore investigated ABA, AAB, and ABC renewal of Pavlovian conditioned responding to cues that predicted either alcohol or sucrose. Male, Long-Evans rats (Charles River) were exposed to either 15% ethanol (Study 1: "alcohol") or 10% sucrose (Study 2: "sucrose") in their home cages. Next, they were trained to discriminate between two auditory stimuli (white noise and clicker; 10 s) in conditioning chambers equipped with distinct olfactory, visual, and tactile contextual stimuli (context A). One conditioned stimulus (CS+) was paired with fluid delivery (0.2 ml/CS+; 3.2 ml/session; alcohol or sucrose in separate experiments), and the second CS (CS-) was not. In all sessions (conditioning, extinction, and test), each CS was presented 16 times/session on a variable-time 67-s schedule, and entries into the fluid port were recorded. CS+ port entries were then extinguished by withholding fluid delivery either in context A or in a second, different context (context B). Next, we assessed ABA, AAB, and ABC renewal in the absence of fluid delivery. During extinction, CS+ port entries were initially elevated in context A relative to context B. ABA renewal of CS+ port entries occurred in both alcohol- and sucrose-trained rats. ABC renewal approached statistical significance when data from both experiments were combined. No AAB renewal was observed, and, in fact, alcohol-trained rats showed AAB suppression. These results corroborate the reliability of ABA renewal and suggest that ABC renewal is a modest effect that may require greater statistical power to detect. From a treatment perspective, the lack of AAB renewal suggests that exposure-based treatments for substance use disorders might benefit from implementation in real-world, drug-use contexts.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".