Triggered Temptations: A New Procedure to Compare Reward-Seeking Behaviour Induced by Discriminative and Conditioned Stimuli in Rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Rationale Environmental cues guide animals towards resources vital for survival but can also drive maladaptive reward-seeking behaviours, as in gambling and eating disorders. While conditioned stimuli (CSs) are paired with reward delivery after reward-seeking actions, discriminative stimuli (DSs) signal reward availability independent of behaviour. Objective We introduce a procedure to compare CS and DS effects on reward-seeking behaviour, in the same subjects within a single session. Methods Female and male Sprague-Dawley rats learned to self-administer sucrose. During each session, DS+ trials signaled that lever pressing would produce sucrose paired with a CS+, and DS−trials signaled no sucrose and a CS−. Next, in the absence of sucrose, we assessed the ability of the cues to i) reinforce lever pressing and ii) increase sucrose seeking when presented response-independently. We also assessed the effects of the mGlu 2/3 receptor agonist LY379268 and d-amphetamine on cue-induced sucrose seeking. Results By the end of self-administration training, lever pressing peaked during DS+ trials and dropped during DS−trials. The DS+ was a conditioned reinforcer of sucrose seeking in both sexes, whereas the CS+ was more effective in males. Response-independent presentations of the DS+ invigorated sucrose seeking in both sexes, whereas the CS+ was effective only in males. LY379268 suppressed DS+-triggered sucrose seeking in females, with no effect in males. D-amphetamine enhanced sucrose seeking non-specifically across cue conditions in males, with no effect in females. Conclusions Our new trial-based procedure can be used to identify unique and similar mechanisms underlying DS and CS influences on appetitive behaviour.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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".