Literature DB >> 23357283

A quantitative analysis of the effects of qualitatively different reinforcers on fixed ratio responding in inbred strains of mice.

Blake A Hutsell1, M Christopher Newland.   

Abstract

Previous studies of inbred mouse strains have shown reinforcer-strain interactions that may potentially mask differences among strains in memory performance. The present research examined the effects of two qualitatively different reinforcers (heterogeneous mix of flavored pellets and sweetened-condensed milk) on responding maintained by fixed-ratio schedules of reinforcement in three inbred strains of mice (BALB/c, C57BL/6, and DBA/2). Responses rates for all strains were a bitonic (inverted U) function of the size of the fixed-ratio schedule and were generally higher when responding was maintained by milk. For the DBA/2 and C57BL/6 and to a lesser extent the BALB/c, milk primarily increased response rates at moderate fixed ratios, but not at the largest fixed ratios tested. A formal model of ratio-schedule performance, Mathematical Principles of Reinforcement (MPR), was applied to the response rate functions of individual mice. According to MPR, the differences in response rates maintained by pellets and milk were mostly due to changes in motoric processes as indicated by changes in the minimum response time (δ) produced by each reinforcer type and not specific activation (a), a model term that represents value and is correlated with reinforcer magnitude and the break point obtained under progressive ratio schedules. MPR also revealed that, although affected by reinforcer type, a parameter interpreted as the rate of saturation of working memory (λ), differed among the strains. Published by Elsevier Inc.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23357283      PMCID: PMC3649567          DOI: 10.1016/j.nlm.2013.01.005

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem        ISSN: 1074-7427            Impact factor:   2.877


  61 in total

1.  On the effects of signaling reinforcer probability and magnitude in delayed matching to sample.

Authors:  Glenn S Brown; K Geoffrey White
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-03       Impact factor: 2.468

2.  Unsignaled delay of reinforcement, relative time, and resistance to change.

Authors:  Timothy A Shahan; Kennon A Lattal
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  2005-05       Impact factor: 2.468

3.  On the law of effect.

Authors:  R J Herrnstein
Journal:  J Exp Anal Behav       Date:  1970-03       Impact factor: 2.468

Review 4.  Animal models of neuropsychiatric disorders.

Authors:  Eric J Nestler; Steven E Hyman
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2010-09-27       Impact factor: 24.884

Review 5.  Progressive ratio schedules in drug self-administration studies in rats: a method to evaluate reinforcing efficacy.

Authors:  N R Richardson; D C Roberts
Journal:  J Neurosci Methods       Date:  1996-05       Impact factor: 2.390

Review 6.  Comprehensive neurocognitive endophenotyping strategies for mouse models of genetic disorders.

Authors:  Michael R Hunsaker
Journal:  Prog Neurobiol       Date:  2012-01-13       Impact factor: 11.685

7.  Impact of strain and D-amphetamine on impulsivity (delay discounting) in inbred mice.

Authors:  Christa M Helms; Jamie M Reeves; Suzanne H Mitchell
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2006-08-17       Impact factor: 4.530

Review 8.  Behavioral phenotypes of inbred mouse strains: implications and recommendations for molecular studies.

Authors:  J N Crawley; J K Belknap; A Collins; J C Crabbe; W Frankel; N Henderson; R J Hitzemann; S C Maxson; L L Miner; A J Silva; J M Wehner; A Wynshaw-Boris; R Paylor
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1997-07       Impact factor: 4.530

9.  Modeling operant behavior in the Parkinsonian rat.

Authors:  Irene Avila; Mark P Reilly; Federico Sanabria; Diana Posadas-Sánchez; Claudia L Chavez; Nikhil Banerjee; Peter Killeen; Eddie Castañeda
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2008-11-27       Impact factor: 3.332

10.  Effect of quinolinic acid-induced lesions of the nucleus accumbens core on performance on a progressive ratio schedule of reinforcement: implications for inter-temporal choice.

Authors:  G Bezzina; S Body; T H C Cheung; C L Hampson; J F W Deakin; I M Anderson; E Szabadi; C M Bradshaw
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  2008-01-03       Impact factor: 4.530

View more
  8 in total

1.  Mouse strain differences in punished ethanol self-administration.

Authors:  Lindsay R Halladay; Adrina Kocharian; Andrew Holmes
Journal:  Alcohol       Date:  2016-10-18       Impact factor: 2.405

2.  Adolescent methylmercury exposure affects choice and delay discounting in mice.

Authors:  Steven R Boomhower; M Christopher Newland
Journal:  Neurotoxicology       Date:  2016-09-24       Impact factor: 4.294

3.  Dissociating the effects of dopamine D2 receptors on effort-based versus value-based decision making using a novel behavioral approach.

Authors:  Matthew R Bailey; Eileen Chun; Elke Schipani; Peter D Balsam; Eleanor H Simpson
Journal:  Behav Neurosci       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 1.912

4.  Strain commonalities and differences in response-outcome decision making in mice.

Authors:  Kelsey S Zimmermann; Chia-Chun Hsu; Shannon L Gourley
Journal:  Neurobiol Learn Mem       Date:  2016-03-18       Impact factor: 2.877

5.  Optimizing reproducibility of operant testing through reinforcer standardization: identification of key nutritional constituents determining reward strength in touchscreens.

Authors:  Eun Woo Kim; Benjamin U Phillips; Christopher J Heath; So Yeon Cho; Hyunjeong Kim; Jemeen Sreedharan; Ho-Taek Song; Jong Eun Lee; Timothy J Bussey; Chul Hoon Kim; Eosu Kim; Lisa M Saksida
Journal:  Mol Brain       Date:  2017-07-17       Impact factor: 4.041

6.  Optimisation of cognitive performance in rodent operant (touchscreen) testing: Evaluation and effects of reinforcer strength.

Authors:  Benjamin U Phillips; Christopher J Heath; Zofia Ossowska; Timothy J Bussey; Lisa M Saksida
Journal:  Learn Behav       Date:  2017-09       Impact factor: 1.986

7.  Pavlovian influences on learning differ between rats and mice in a counter-balanced Go/NoGo judgement bias task.

Authors:  Samantha Jones; Elizabeth S Paul; Peter Dayan; Emma S J Robinson; Michael Mendl
Journal:  Behav Brain Res       Date:  2017-05-23       Impact factor: 3.332

8.  The development and biological characteristics of a novel potentially radioresistant inbred mouse strain.

Authors:  Qin Wang; Liqing Du; Yan Wang; Chang Xu; Zhijuan Sun; Yue Fu; Bing Yang; Yueying Wang; Chuanjie Mu; Saijun Fan; Lu Cai; Takanori Katsube; Qiang Liu
Journal:  Mol Med Rep       Date:  2016-12-22       Impact factor: 2.952

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.