Effect of Schedule-Induced Behavior on Responses of Spontaneously Hypertensive and Wistar-Kyoto Rats in a Delay-Discounting Task: A Preliminary Report.

Sergio Ramos, Gabriela E López-Tolsa, Espen A Sjoberg, Ricardo Pellón
Author Information
  1. Sergio Ramos: Animal Learning and Behavior Laboratory, Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain.
  2. Gabriela E López-Tolsa: Animal Learning and Behavior Laboratory, Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain.
  3. Espen A Sjoberg: Animal Behavior Laboratories, Department of Behavioral Science, Oslo Metropolitan University, Oslo, Norway.
  4. Ricardo Pellón: Animal Learning and Behavior Laboratory, Departamento de Psicología Básica I, Universidad Nacional de Educación a Distancia (UNED), Madrid, Spain.

Abstract

Delay discounting is the loss of the subjective value of an outcome as the time to its delivery increases. It has been suggested that organisms can become more tolerant of this delay when engaging in schedule-induced behaviors. Schedule-induced behaviors are those that develop at a high rate during intermittent reinforcement schedules without the need of arranged contingency to the reinforcer, and they have been considered as a model of compulsivity. There is evidence that relates compulsivity to greater delay discounting. The rate of delay discounting represents how impulsive the subject is, as the rate of discounting increases the higher the impulsivity. Thus, the main purpose of this study was to undertake a preliminary evaluation of whether developing schedule-induced behaviors affects performance in a delay-discounting task, by comparing spontaneously Hypertensive rats (SHRs) and Wistar-Kyoto (WKY) rats. The rats were exposed to a task that consisted of presenting the subjects with two levers: one produced a small, immediate food reinforcer while the other one produced a larger, delayed reinforcer. During Condition A, the levers were presented, and a water bottle and a running wheel were available in the conditioning chambers; during Condition B, only the levers were presented. SHR and WKY rats developed schedule-induced behaviors during Condition A and showed no difference in discounting rates, contradicting previous reports. Lick allocation during response-reinforcer delays and the inter-trial interval (ITI) showed, respectively, pre- and post-food distributions. Discounting rates during Condition B (when rats could not engage in schedule-induced behaviors) did not reach statistical significance difference among strains of animals, although it was observed a tendency for WKY to behave more self-controlled. Likewise it was not found any effect of schedule-induced behavior on discounting rates, however, a tendency for WKY rats to behave more impulsive during access to drink and run seems to tentatively support the idea of schedule-induced behavior as a model of compulsivity in those rats, being impulsivity simply defined as an excess in behavior.

Keywords

References

  1. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Apr;35(5):1198-208 [PMID: 20090672]
  2. J Exp Anal Behav. 2015 Jan;103(1):1-9 [PMID: 25641079]
  3. Behav Pharmacol. 2009 Sep;20(5-6):549-53 [PMID: 19654504]
  4. Behav Brain Res. 2013 Feb 1;238:10-22 [PMID: 23085479]
  5. Neuropharmacology. 2009 Dec;57(7-8):619-26 [PMID: 19698722]
  6. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2007 Aug;193(2):215-23 [PMID: 17406857]
  7. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2015 Oct;41(4):444-51 [PMID: 26437384]
  8. Behav Brain Res. 2019 May 17;364:480-493 [PMID: 28963043]
  9. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010 Oct;35(11):2155-64 [PMID: 20631686]
  10. Behav Brain Res. 2009 Dec 28;205(2):372-6 [PMID: 19616039]
  11. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2000 Jan;24(1):31-9 [PMID: 10654658]
  12. Behav Processes. 2007 Feb 22;74(2):198-208 [PMID: 17023122]
  13. Personal Disord. 2015 Apr;6(2):182-98 [PMID: 25867841]
  14. Behav Brain Res. 2003 Nov 30;146(1-2):105-19 [PMID: 14643464]
  15. Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Apr 15;75(8):653-9 [PMID: 24199665]
  16. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2016 Apr;42(2):141-62 [PMID: 26881899]
  17. Neuropsychology. 2009 May;23(3):367-80 [PMID: 19413450]
  18. Behav Brain Res. 2015 Nov 1;294:62-71 [PMID: 26225844]
  19. PLoS One. 2014 Nov 05;9(11):e111739 [PMID: 25372136]
  20. Behav Brain Res. 2017 Jun 15;328:178-185 [PMID: 28435126]
  21. Brain Res. 2011 Jun 17;1396:45-53 [PMID: 21570676]
  22. Behav Processes. 2016 Jun;127:86-96 [PMID: 27036231]
  23. J Neurosci Methods. 2009 Jan 30;176(2):166-71 [PMID: 18835408]
  24. Behav Brain Res. 2014 Sep 1;271:184-94 [PMID: 24931797]
  25. Perspect Behav Sci. 2018 Feb 15;42(2):291-322 [PMID: 31976436]
  26. Neuron. 2011 Feb 24;69(4):680-94 [PMID: 21338879]
  27. Behav Brain Funct. 2017 Feb 15;13(1):3 [PMID: 28202023]
  28. Learn Behav. 2004 Nov;32(4):491-9 [PMID: 15825889]
  29. Behav Brain Funct. 2008 Dec 01;4:56 [PMID: 19046438]
  30. J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1992 Feb;33(2):387-98 [PMID: 1564081]
  31. Learn Behav. 2016 Dec;44(4):329-339 [PMID: 27059234]
  32. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 2005 Mar;80(3):387-93 [PMID: 15740780]
  33. J Exp Anal Behav. 1961 Oct;4:349-50 [PMID: 13874003]
  34. Learn Behav. 2013 Mar;41(1):1-24 [PMID: 23359373]
  35. Behav Brain Res. 2008 Feb 11;187(1):146-52 [PMID: 17950930]
  36. Behav Processes. 2003 Apr 28;62(1-3):157-182 [PMID: 12729976]
  37. Physiol Behav. 1971 May;6(5):577-88 [PMID: 5004684]
  38. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2003 Nov;27(7):639-51 [PMID: 14624808]
  39. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2004 Jul;29(7):1331-43 [PMID: 15054475]
  40. J Exp Anal Behav. 1978 Jul;30(1):83-96 [PMID: 16812091]
  41. Physiol Behav. 2016 Mar 1;155:30-7 [PMID: 26656767]
  42. Behav Processes. 2003 Mar 31;61(3):143-158 [PMID: 12642170]
  43. Atten Defic Hyperact Disord. 2010 Mar;2(1):1-20 [PMID: 21432586]
  44. Science. 1963 May 24;140(3569):888-9 [PMID: 13987659]
  45. Behav Brain Res. 2011 Sep 30;223(1):58-69 [PMID: 21540060]
  46. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 Jan;219(2):647-59 [PMID: 22113447]

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0ratsdiscountingschedule-inducedbehaviorsWKYdelaycompulsivityConditionbehaviorratereinforcerimpulsivityratesincreasesmodelimpulsivetaskWistar-KyotooneproducedleverspresentedBSHRshoweddifferencetendencybehaveDelaylosssubjectivevalueoutcometimedeliverysuggestedorganismscanbecometolerantengagingSchedule-induceddevelophighintermittentreinforcementscheduleswithoutneedarrangedcontingencyconsideredevidencerelatesgreaterrepresentssubjecthigherThusmainpurposestudyundertakepreliminaryevaluationwhetherdevelopingaffectsperformancedelay-discountingcomparingspontaneouslyhypertensiveSHRsexposedconsistedpresentingsubjectstwolevers:smallimmediatefoodlargerdelayedwaterbottlerunningwheelavailableconditioningchambersdevelopedcontradictingpreviousreportsLickallocationresponse-reinforcerdelaysinter-trialintervalITIrespectivelypre-post-fooddistributionsDiscountingengagereachstatisticalsignificanceamongstrainsanimalsalthoughobservedself-controlledLikewisefoundeffecthoweveraccessdrinkrunseemstentativelysupportideasimplydefinedexcessEffectSchedule-InducedBehaviorResponsesSpontaneouslyHypertensiveRatsDelay-DiscountingTask:PreliminaryReportvs

Similar Articles

Cited By (1)