Competition between food and rewarding brain shock

The effect of train duration of rewarding stimulation on food self-deprivation

“…This finding was expected, since animals do not lever press while the stimulation is on (Beyra, 1972). Several studies have reported that a subject's leverpressing rate is a good predictor of self-deprivation (Rossi & Stutz, 1978;Stutz, Rossi, & Bowring, 1971). However, in this investigation the leverpressing rate of a subject did not correlate highly with degree of self-deprivation (r = -.06).…”

“…could be postulated to account for the results obtained in this study, previous work from our laboratory suggests that none of these explanations can account for the self-deprivation phenomenon. Rossi and Stutz (1978) and Stutz et al (1971) showed that experimenter-administrated BSR (which removes the element of competition from the experimental situation) does not interfere with food or water intake in previously self-depriving rats. The reward hypothesis is further supported by the observation that the degree of food deprivation influenced the amount of food consumed, suggesting that as food became more rewarding, the effectiveness of BSR in reducing food intake was diminished.…”

“…Further analyses of the data revealed that stimulation on-time (defined as the product of leverpresses and train duration) was a better predictor of food intake than was leverpressing rate. The results are interpreted as supporting the hypothesis that choices for food or BSR during competition reflect the relative reward value of the alternatives.The potency of brain-stimulation reward (BSR) has been dramatically demonstrated by its ability to compete with behavior that has biologically relevant consequences (Carlisle & Snyder, 1970;Eckert & Lewis, 1967;Morgan & Mogenson, 1966;Rossi & Stutz, 1978;Routtenberg & Lindy, 1965;Spies, 1965;Stutz, Rossi, & Bowring, 1971). It has been argued that self-stimulation competes with other reinforcers by virtue of its rewarding properties (Rossi & Stutz, 1978;Stutz, Rossi, & Bowring, 1971) as opposed to its ability to reduce the competitive drive (Spies, 1965).…”

“…It has been argued that self-stimulation competes with other reinforcers by virtue of its rewarding properties (Rossi & Stutz, 1978;Stutz, Rossi, & Bowring, 1971) as opposed to its ability to reduce the competitive drive (Spies, 1965). This conclusion is based on the findings that animals who self-starve in order to obtain BSR also self-dehydrate, and that experimenter-administered brain stimulation does not significantly reduce food intake in food-deprived animals who have previously .self-starved.…”

Brain Stimulation Reward Supports More Consistent and Accurate Rodent Decision-Making than Food Reward

“…This contradicts common knowledge of BSR, that animals will “self-starve” in favor of stimulation (Stutz et al, 1971; Santos and Routtenberg, 1972), but may be reflective of variations in electrode placement. More medial placements may induce this effect, and more lateral placements may escape self-starvation (Barbano et al, 2016; Gigante et al, 2016).…”