Investigating the procedural variables that determine whether rats will display negative anticipatory contrast or positive induction

Weatherly, Jeffrey N.; Nurnberger, Jeri T.; Hanson, Brent C.

doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2005.03.002

Cited by 15 publications

(20 citation statements)

References 12 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…It offers a rapid technique to test different outcome comparisons using a within subjects design. It extends previous work by others on incentive contrast (Flaherty and Becker, 1982), positive induction (Weatherly et al, 2005) and variety (Melville et al, 1997). The design mimics those used in psychopharmacology and behavioral neuroscience to examine addiction, craving and neural basis of reward (Samson et al,, 2000; Everett and Robbins, 2005).…”

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

“…Reasons for obtaining different forms and intensities of relative reward effects rely on procedural design (Weatherly et al, 2005) and include the timing and predictability of the outcome experiences. Timing and predictability were influenced by the insertion of a variable interval delay (χ́ = 30 s) between trials in the present study.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Previous work found that deprivation level and outcome location were key procedural details that determined contrast versus induction (Weatherly et al, 2005). In the present work, food restriction was kept constant in all subjects at a moderate level and outcomes were delivered to an identical food cup location.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This work on scaling used rates of operant leverpressing between exposure to training outcome (preshift) and testing outcome (postshift). These studies intentionally chose the operant leverpress because it is notoriously difficult to obtain incentive contrast when examining the combination of instrumental and anticipatory responding (Spear, 1965; Weatherly et al, 2005). …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Relative reward effects on operant behavior: Incentive contrast, induction and variety effects

Webber

Chambers

Kostek

et al. 2015

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Comparing different rewards automatically produces dynamic relative outcome effects on behavior. Each new outcome exposure is to an updated version evaluated relative to alternatives. Relative reward effects include incentive contrast, positive induction and variety effects. The present study utilized a novel behavioral design to examine relative reward effects on a chain of operant behavior using auditory cues. Incentive contrast is the most often examined effect and focuses on increases or decreases in behavioral performance after value upshifts (positive) or downshifts (negative) relative to another outcome. We examined the impact of comparing two reward outcomes in a repeated measures design with three sessions: a single outcome and a mixed outcome and a final single outcome session. Relative reward effects should be apparent when comparing trials for the identical outcome between the single and mixed session types. An auditory cue triggered a series of operant responses (nosepoke-leverpress-food retrieval), and we measured possible contrast effects for different reward magnitude combinations. We found positive contrast for trials with the greatest magnitude differential but positive induction or variety effects in other combinations. This behavioral task could be useful for analyzing environmental or neurobiological factors involved in reward comparisons, decision-making and choice during instrumental, goal-directed action.

show abstract

Section: Introductionsupporting

confidence: 87%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Relative reward effects on operant behavior: Incentive contrast, induction and variety effects

Webber

Chambers

Kostek

et al. 2015

Behavioural Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Similarly, sessions for "Preferred" pellets would have changed the diet condition of the Chow A/I / Chow A/I group. Alternatively, if sessions had been performed daily, reinforced by the rat's home cage-appropriate diet, then performance across groups would have been confounded by only one group having received different reinforcers at the same magazine as a result of the same operant response (92,93). Thus, the present design, summarized in Supplemental Fig.…”

Section: Subjectsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Intermittent access to preferred food reduces the reinforcing efficacy of chow in rats

Cottone

Sabino²,

Steardo³

et al. 2008

American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comp

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cottone P, Sabino V, Steardo L, Zorrilla EP. Intermittent access to preferred food reduces the reinforcing efficacy of chow in rats. Am J Physiol Regul Integr Comp Physiol 295: R1066 -R1076, 2008. First published July 30, 2008 doi:10.1152/ajpregu.90309.2008.-Intermittent, extended access to preferred diets increases their intake. However, the effects of such access on the acceptance and reinforcing efficacy of otherwise satisfying alternatives is less known. To investigate the role of nonnutritional contributions to the hypophagia that follows removal of preferred food, male Wistar rats were fed a chow diet (Chow A/I), preferred to their regular chow (Chow), which was equally consumed under 1-choice conditions to an even more preferred chocolate-flavored, sucrose-rich diet (Preferred). Rats then learned to obtain Chow A/I pellets under a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement and were assigned to two matched groups. Each week, one group (n ϭ 15) was diet-cycled, receiving Chow A/I for 5 days followed by the Preferred diet for 2 days. Controls received Chow A/I daily (n ϭ 14). Progressive ratio sessions were performed daily during the 5 days that all subjects received Chow A/I in the home cage. Across 5 wk, diet-cycled rats progressively ate less of the otherwise palatable Chow A/I diet. Hypophagia was not due to greater prior intake or weight gain, motor impairment, or facilitated satiation and was associated with changes in progressive ratio performance that suggested a reduced reinforcing efficacy of the Chow A/I diet in diet-cycled animals. By week 4, diet-cycled animals began to overeat the preferred diet, especially during the first 6 h of renewed access, resembling a deprivation effect. The results suggest that intermittent access to highly preferred food, as practiced by many restrained eaters, may progressively decrease the acceptability of less palatable foods, and may promote relapse to more rewarding alternatives. limited access; food intake; negative contrast; deprivation; palatability PROVIDING LIMITED, RATHER than continuous, access to rewards is a procedure used to model excessive behaviors. For example, intermittent, but extended, access to substances of abuse, such as ethanol (8, 19, 24, 29, 66), nicotine (35, 66), cocaine (1, 2, 5, 49, 62, 69, 95), heroin (3, 56), and methamphetamine (48) induces behavioral and molecular adaptations in rodents which resemble features of drug dependence in humans (54, 99), including increased drug self-administration. Drug addicts themselves often show cyclic patterns of uncontrolled use vs. abstinence, a profile also modeled by intermittent access animal models.Cycles of access to and deprivation from palatable foods also have been used to model the dysregulated food-directed behavior seen in some humans. Restrained eaters attempt to limit themselves to "safe" foods, typically less palatable than "forbidden" foods, to which they often return in bouts of overeating (37,46,50,86,98). Accordingly, it has been proposed that animals given intermittent access ...

show abstract

Incentive Relativity

Torres¹,

Papini²

2017

Encyclopedia of Animal Cognition and Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Investigating the procedural variables that determine whether rats will display negative anticipatory contrast or positive induction

Cited by 15 publications

References 12 publications

Relative reward effects on operant behavior: Incentive contrast, induction and variety effects

Relative reward effects on operant behavior: Incentive contrast, induction and variety effects

Intermittent access to preferred food reduces the reinforcing efficacy of chow in rats

Incentive Relativity

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About