A new discrimination procedure to compare reward seeking triggered by discriminative and conditioned stimuli in rats
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Rationale. Reward-associated cues are crucial in directing animals toward essential survival rewards. While much preclinical research focuses on conditioned stimuli (CS) paired with rewards, discriminative stimuli (DS) signaling reward availability (DS+) or unavailability (DS-) are equally important. Studies on CS and DS effects on reward-seeking often use separate animal cohorts or in separate sessions which can make it challenging to directly compare their elative roles in reward-seeking behavior. Methods. Male and female Sprague-Dawley rats were trained to self-administer 10% liquid sucrose. During each session, a DS+ indicated that lever pressing would produce sucrose paired with a CS+, alternating with a DS-, which signaled lever pressing would result in a CS- and no sucrose. After training, we tested whether the four cues reinforced lever-pressing (conditioned reinforcers) and triggered sucrose-seeking. We then examined the effects of a mGlu2/3 receptor agonist, LY379268 (0, 0.3, 1 mg/kg) and a non-specific dopamine agonist, d-amphetamine (0, 0.75 mg/kg) on cue-induced sucrose-seeking. Results. Sucrose self-administration became controlled by the DSs. The DS+ was a stronger reinforcer and increased sucrose-seeking behavior more than the CS+ across sexes and conditions. Responses to CS+ varied by sex and test design. LY379268 reduced DS+-induced sucrose seeking in females, while d-amphetamine enhanced sucrose-seeking only in males, regardless of cue type. Conclusions. Thus, our procedure can be used to study both the behavioural response to reward-associated conditioned and discriminative stimuli and underlying neurobiological mechanisms in the same test session, within the same animals across sex.
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) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.006 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.009 | 0.002 |
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".