Discriminative properties of rewarding electrical brain stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rewarding electrical brain stimulation (EBS) can serve as a discriminative stimulus. It has long been suspected that this discriminative property reflects the subjective intensity of the rewarding effect. In turn, the counter model of spatiotemporal integration attributes the subjective reward intensity produced by a stimulation train of fixed duration to the number of firings triggered in the directly activated neural substrate. If the discriminative property of rewarding EBS depends on subjective reward intensity, it should also obey the counter model. To determine whether this is so, we used rewarding EBS of the medial forebrain bundle in rats as a discriminative stimulus to guide responding for a sucrose reward, and we varied the amplitude and frequency of the pulses constituting the stimulation train. High- or low-EBS trains, signaled which of two levers would deliver the sucrose reward. On generalization trials, the train serving as the discriminative stimulus was intermediate in strength to the high- and low-EBS trains. Responding on the two levers varied systematically as a function of stimulation strength. The order (ascending, descending or random) in which the strength of the discriminative stimulus varied was without discernible effect. In most rats, similar curves relate discriminative performance to stimulation strength regardless of whether pulse amplitude or pulse frequency was varied. Thus, the counter model was largely successful in accounting for the effect of varying stimulation strength on discrimination performance. This result is consistent with the hypothesis that the subjective intensity of the rewarding effect is the basis for the discrimination.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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".