Relapse after intermittent access to cocaine: Discriminative cues more effectively trigger drug seeking than do conditioned cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract When people with drug addiction encounter cues associated with drug use, this can trigger cravings and relapse. These cues can include conditioned stimuli (CSs) signaling drug delivery and discriminative stimuli (DSs) signaling drug availability. Compared to CS effects, DS effects are less explored in preclinical studies on cue-induced relapse. We compared CS and DS effects on reward seeking following abstinence from intermittent-access cocaine (or sucrose) self-administration. During 15-20 intermittent-access sessions, rats self-administered sucrose pellets or i.v. cocaine paired with a light-tone CS. Cocaine/sucrose was available for 5-min (signalled by a light; DS+) and unavailable for 25 min (signalled by different lighting conditions; DS-), and this cycled for 4 h/session. Following abstinence, we measured cocaine/sucrose seeking under extinction triggered by CS and DS presentation, and instrumental responding reinforced by these cues. Across intermittent-access sessions, rats increased lever pressing for cocaine or sucrose during DS+ periods and decreased responding during DS-periods. On days 2 and 21 of abstinence, only presentation of the DS+ or DS+ and CS combined elicited increased cocaine/sucrose-seeking behaviour (i.e., increased active lever presses). Additionally, presenting the DS-alongside the DS+ suppressed the increased cocaine-seeking behaviour otherwise produced by the DS+. Finally, on day 21 of abstinence, rats showed equivalent levels of lever pressing reinforced by the DS+, CS and by the DS+ and CS combined, suggesting comparable conditioned reinforcing value. After intermittent self-administration, cocaine-associated DSs and CSs acquire similar conditioned reinforcing properties, but DSs more effectively trigger increases in drug 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) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".