Serotonin 2C Antagonism in the Lateral Orbitofrontal Cortex Ameliorates Cue-Enhanced Risk Preference and Restores Sensitivity to Reinforcer Devaluation in Male Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Previous research has indicated that reward-paired cues can enhance disadvantageous risky choice in both humans and rodents. Systemic administration of a serotonin 2C receptor antagonist can attenuate this cue-induced risk preference in rats. However, the neurocognitive mechanisms mediating this effect are currently unknown. We therefore assessed whether the serotonin 2C receptor antagonist RS 102221 is able to attenuate cue-enhanced risk preference via its actions in the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) or prelimbic (PrL) area of the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). A total of 32 male Long–Evans rats were trained on the cued version of the rat gambling task (rGT), a rodent analog of the human Iowa gambling task, and bilateral guide cannulae were implanted into the lOFC or PrL. Intra-lOFC infusions of the 5-HT 2C antagonist RS 102221 reduced risky choice in animals that showed a preference for the risky options of the rGT at baseline. This effect was not observed in optimal decision-makers, nor those that received infusions targeting the PrL. Given prior data showing that 5-HT 2C antagonists also improve reversal learning through the same neural locus, we hypothesized that reward-concurrent cues may amplify risky decision-making through cognitive inflexibility. We therefore devalued the sugar pellet rewards used in the cued rGT (crGT) through satiation and observed that decision-making patterns did not shift unless animals also received intra-lOFC RS 102221. Collectively, these data suggest that the lOFC is one critical site through which reward-concurrent cues promote risky choice patterns that are insensitive to reinforcer devaluation, and that 5-HT 2C antagonism may optimize choice by facilitating exploration.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".