» Articles » PMID: 23357283

A Quantitative Analysis of the Effects of Qualitatively Different Reinforcers on Fixed Ratio Responding in Inbred Strains of Mice

Overview
Date 2013 Jan 30
PMID 23357283
Citations 10
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
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.

Citing Articles

Assessing reward preference using operant behavior in male and female mice.

Karlsson R, Cameron H PLoS One. 2023; 18(9):e0291419.

PMID: 37699025 PMC: 10497155. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0291419.


Something to Snack on: Can Dietary Modulators Boost Mind and Body?.

Guillaumin M, Syarov B, Burdakov D, Peleg-Raibstein D Nutrients. 2023; 15(6).

PMID: 36986089 PMC: 10056809. DOI: 10.3390/nu15061356.


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

Bailey M, Chun E, Schipani E, Balsam P, Simpson E Behav Neurosci. 2020; 134(2):101-118.

PMID: 32175760 PMC: 7802819. DOI: 10.1037/bne0000361.


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

Kim E, Phillips B, Heath C, Cho S, Kim H, Sreedharan J Mol Brain. 2017; 10(1):31.

PMID: 28716096 PMC: 5512767. DOI: 10.1186/s13041-017-0312-0.


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

Jones S, Paul E, Dayan P, Robinson E, Mendl M Behav Brain Res. 2017; 331:214-224.

PMID: 28549647 PMC: 5480777. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.05.044.


References
1.
Mazur J, Biondi D . Delay-amount tradeoffs in choices by pigeons and rats: hyperbolic versus exponential discounting. J Exp Anal Behav. 2009; 91(2):197-211. PMC: 2648524. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2009.91-197. View

2.
Katz J . Models of relative reinforcing efficacy of drugs and their predictive utility. Behav Pharmacol. 1990; 1(4):283-301. DOI: 10.1097/00008877-199000140-00003. View

3.
Haluk D, Wickman K . Evaluation of study design variables and their impact on food-maintained operant responding in mice. Behav Brain Res. 2009; 207(2):394-401. PMC: 2814880. DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.10.025. View

4.
Curtis C, Lee D . Beyond working memory: the role of persistent activity in decision making. Trends Cogn Sci. 2010; 14(5):216-22. PMC: 2883296. DOI: 10.1016/j.tics.2010.03.006. View

5.
Brown G, Geoffrey White K . On the effects of signaling reinforcer probability and magnitude in delayed matching to sample. J Exp Anal Behav. 2005; 83(2):119-28. PMC: 1193742. DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2005.94-03. View