Individual differences in the engagement of habitual control over alcohol seeking predict the development of compulsive alcohol seeking and drinking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Excessive drinking is an important behavioural characteristic of alcohol addiction, but not the only one. Individuals addicted to alcohol crave alcoholic beverages, spend time seeking alcohol despite negative consequences and eventually drink to intoxication. With prolonged use, control over alcohol seeking devolves to anterior dorsolateral striatum, dopamine-dependent mechanisms implicated in habit learning and individuals in whom alcohol seeking relies more on these mechanisms are more likely to persist in seeking alcohol despite the risk of punishment. Here, we tested the hypothesis that the development of habitual alcohol seeking predicts the development of compulsive seeking and that, once developed, it is associated with compulsive alcohol drinking. Male alcohol-preferring rats were pre-exposed intermittently to a two-bottle choice procedure and trained on a seeking-taking chained schedule of alcohol reinforcement until some individuals developed punishment-resistant seeking behaviour. The associative basis of their seeking responses was probed with an outcome-devaluation procedure, early or late in training. After seeking behaviour was well established, subjects that had developed greater resistance to outcome devaluation (were more habitual) were more likely to show punishment-resistant (compulsive) alcohol seeking. These individuals also drank more alcohol, despite quinine adulteration, even though having similar alcohol preference and intake before and during instrumental training. They were also less sensitive to changes in the contingency between seeking responses and alcohol outcome, providing further evidence of recruitment of the habit system. We therefore provide direct behavioural evidence that compulsive alcohol seeking emerges alongside compulsive drinking in individuals who have preferentially engaged the habit system.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".