Uncertain, intermittent access to reward promotes increased reward pursuit
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Self-administration procedures have been developed to model the intermittency of cocaine use in humans. These procedures involve intermittent, predictable access to cocaine during daily self-administration sessions. However, human drug use often involves intermittent and unpredictable patterns of drug access. Here, we introduce a new procedure to study the effects of unpredictable, intermittent access (UIntA) to a reinforcer, and we compare this procedure to two existing ones that provide predictable reinforcer availability; continuous (ContA) or intermittent (IntA) access. Three groups of rats self-administered water or a 5% sucrose solution in daily hour-long sessions. UIntA rats had alternating periods of reinforcer ON and OFF of unpredictable duration (1, 5 or 9 min/period). During reinforcer ON periods, reinforcer quantities were also unpredictable (0, 0.1 or 0.2 ml of solution) and were available under a variable ratio 3 schedule of reinforcement (1-6 responses). Both IntA and ContA rats had access to a fixed volume of water or sucrose (0.1 ml), under a fixed ratio 3 schedule of reinforcement. IntA rats had alternating and predictable 5-min reinforcer ON and OFF periods, while ContA rats had 60 minutes of reinforcer access during each session. Following 14 daily self-administration sessions, we found that UIntA rats had the highest rates of responding for water or sucrose reward under progressive ratio and extinction conditions, and the highest levels of cue-induced reinstatement of sucrose seeking. Thus, uncertain, intermittent access to reward promotes increased reward-seeking and -taking behaviours. This has implications for modeling addiction and other disorders of increased reward seeking.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".