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

Blake A Hutsell, M Christopher Newland
Author Information
  1. Blake A Hutsell: Department of Psychology, Auburn University, Auburn, AL 36849-5212, USA. blakehutsell@auburn.edu

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.

References

  1. J Exp Anal Behav. 2009 Mar;91(2):197-211 [PMID: 19794834]
  2. Behav Pharmacol. 1990;1(4):283-301 [PMID: 11175414]
  3. Behav Brain Res. 2010 Mar 5;207(2):394-401 [PMID: 19879302]
  4. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010 May;14(5):216-22 [PMID: 20381406]
  5. J Exp Anal Behav. 2005 Mar;83(2):119-28 [PMID: 15828590]
  6. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2002 May;72(1-2):319-34 [PMID: 11900803]
  7. Curr Protoc Neurosci. 2005 May;Chapter 8:Unit 8.5H [PMID: 18428627]
  8. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1998 Oct;139(3):169-84 [PMID: 9784071]
  9. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000 Dec;153(1):1-16 [PMID: 11255919]
  10. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Sep;70(2):123-38 [PMID: 9768504]
  11. Genes Brain Behav. 2006;5 Suppl 2:5-24 [PMID: 16681797]
  12. Hum Mol Genet. 2000 Apr 12;9(6):953-65 [PMID: 10767319]
  13. Brain Res. 1999 Jul 17;835(1):18-26 [PMID: 10448192]
  14. Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):49-64 [PMID: 12729968]
  15. J Exp Anal Behav. 2009 Jan;91(1):75-87 [PMID: 19230513]
  16. Psychol Rev. 2008 Jan;115(1):186-98 [PMID: 18211190]
  17. Annu Rev Clin Psychol. 2011;7:39-61 [PMID: 21219191]
  18. Psychon Bull Rev. 2001 Mar;8(1):18-43 [PMID: 11340865]
  19. Behav Brain Res. 2001 Jun;121(1-2):39-55 [PMID: 11275283]
  20. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970 Mar;13(2):243-66 [PMID: 16811440]
  21. J Exp Anal Behav. 1998 Mar;69(2):103-22 [PMID: 9540229]
  22. Behav Brain Res. 2005 Jan 6;156(1):145-52 [PMID: 15474659]
  23. Behav Processes. 2011 May;87(1):57-63 [PMID: 21215304]
  24. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2006 Oct;188(2):144-51 [PMID: 16915383]
  25. J Exp Anal Behav. 2004 Jan;81(1):39-50 [PMID: 15113132]
  26. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2000 Sep;152(1):47-54 [PMID: 11041315]
  27. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 Aug;222(4):549-64 [PMID: 22752382]
  28. J Exp Anal Behav. 2010 Mar;93(2):171-84 [PMID: 20885809]
  29. Trends Genet. 2002 Dec;18(12):643-50 [PMID: 12446150]
  30. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2008 Apr;197(2):339-50 [PMID: 18167622]
  31. Am J Med Genet B Neuropsychiatr Genet. 2009 Jan 5;150B(1):1-11 [PMID: 18484083]
  32. NIDA Res Monogr. 1981 Jul;37:182-96 [PMID: 6798458]
  33. Behav Pharmacol. 2004 Nov;15(7):443-59 [PMID: 15472567]
  34. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1997 Jul;23(3):351-67 [PMID: 9206029]
  35. J Exp Anal Behav. 2005 Jul;84(1):111-27 [PMID: 16156140]
  36. J Exp Anal Behav. 1995 Nov;64(3):405-31 [PMID: 16812776]
  37. J Exp Anal Behav. 2010 Jan;93(1):129-39 [PMID: 20676272]
  38. Science. 1999 Jun 4;284(5420):1670-2 [PMID: 10356397]
  39. Eur J Neurosci. 2003 Jan;17(1):128-36 [PMID: 12534976]
  40. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Mar 17;198(2):298-305 [PMID: 19073222]
  41. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 1997 Jul;132(2):107-24 [PMID: 9266608]
  42. Behav Brain Res. 2001 Nov 1;125(1-2):237-48 [PMID: 11682115]
  43. Behav Brain Res. 2012 Jan 15;226(2):397-403 [PMID: 21971014]
  44. Psychol Bull. 2013 Sep;139(5):1000-28 [PMID: 22946881]
  45. J Neurosci Methods. 1996 May;66(1):1-11 [PMID: 8794935]
  46. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2009 Jan;34(1):74-89 [PMID: 18830240]
  47. Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):75-88 [PMID: 12729970]
  48. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2004 Jan;81(1):96-9 [PMID: 14670363]
  49. Science. 2000 Jul 21;289(5478):463-5 [PMID: 10903209]
  50. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 2005 Sep;4(9):775-90 [PMID: 16138108]
  51. Biol Psychol. 2006 Jul;73(1):19-38 [PMID: 16546312]
  52. Prog Neurobiol. 2012 Feb;96(2):220-41 [PMID: 22266125]
  53. J Exp Anal Behav. 1992 Sep;58(2):377-88 [PMID: 16812671]
  54. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Jan;35(1):35-50 [PMID: 19159161]
  55. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2009 Apr;35(2):238-49 [PMID: 19364232]
  56. Nat Neurosci. 2010 Oct;13(10):1161-9 [PMID: 20877280]
  57. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2005 May;179(2):489-97 [PMID: 15565430]
  58. J Exp Anal Behav. 2005 May;83(3):201-19 [PMID: 16047606]
  59. Behav Processes. 2004 Jul 30;67(1):19-26 [PMID: 15182922]
  60. Nat Rev Genet. 2002 Feb;3(2):114-23 [PMID: 11836505]
  61. Neuron. 2008 Mar 27;57(6):809-18 [PMID: 18367082]

Grants

  1. R56 ES017448/United States
  2. ES017448/United States

MeSH Term

Animals
Conditioning, Operant
Male
Mice
Mice, Inbred BALB C
Mice, Inbred C57BL
Mice, Inbred DBA
Mice, Inbred Strains
Reinforcement Schedule
Reinforcement, Psychology
Reward

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0strainsmilkresponseinbredrespondingmaintainedmiceratesfixedMPRreinforcerdifferencesamongmemoryperformanceeffectsqualitativelydifferentreinforcerspelletsfixed-ratioschedulesBALB/cC57BL/6DBA/2ratiosmodelratechangestyperatioPreviousstudiesmouseshownreinforcer-straininteractionsmaypotentiallymaskpresentresearchexaminedtwoheterogeneousmixflavoredsweetened-condensedreinforcementthreeResponsesbitonicinvertedUfunctionsizeschedulegenerallyhigherlesserextentprimarilyincreasedmoderatelargesttestedformalratio-scheduleMathematicalPrinciplesReinforcementappliedfunctionsindividualAccordingmostlyduemotoricprocessesindicatedminimumtimeδproducedspecificactivationtermrepresentsvaluecorrelatedmagnitudebreakpointobtainedprogressivealsorevealedalthoughaffectedparameterinterpretedsaturationworkingλdifferedquantitativeanalysis

Similar Articles

Cited By