» Articles » PMID: 37120610

Reward Maximization Assessed Using a Sequential Patch Depletion Task in a Large Sample of Heterogeneous Stock Rats

Abstract

Choice behavior requires animals to evaluate both short- and long-term advantages and disadvantages of all potential alternatives. Impulsive choice is traditionally measured in laboratory tasks by utilizing delay discounting (DD), a paradigm that offers a choice between a smaller immediate reward, or a larger more delayed reward. This study tested a large sample of Heterogeneous Stock (HS) male (n = 896) and female (n = 898) rats, part of a larger genetic study, to investigate whether measures of reward maximization overlapped with traditional models of delay discounting via the patch depletion model using a Sequential Patch Depletion procedure. In this task, rats were offered a concurrent choice between two water "patches" and could elect to "stay" in the current patch or "leave" for an alternative patch. Staying in the current patch resulted in decreasing subsequent reward magnitudes, whereas the choice to leave a patch was followed by a delay and a resetting to the maximum reward magnitude. Based on the delay in a given session, different visit durations were necessary to obtain the maximum number of rewards. Visit duration may be analogous to an indifference point in traditional DD tasks. Males and females did not significantly differ on traditional measures of DD (e.g. delay gradient; AUC). When examining measures of patch utilization, females made fewer patch changes at all delays and spent more time in the patch before leaving for the alternative patch compared to males. Consistent with this, there was some evidence that females deviated from reward maximization more than males. However, when controlling for body weight, females had a higher normalized rate of reinforcement than males. Measures of reward maximization were only weakly associated with traditional DD measures and may represent distinctive underlying processes. Taken together, females performance differed from males with regard to reward maximization that were not observed utilizing traditional measures of DD, suggesting that the patch depletion model was more sensitive to modest sex differences when compared to traditional DD measures in a large sample of HS rats.

Citing Articles

Genetic Loci Influencing Cue-Reactivity in Heterogeneous Stock Rats.

King C, Chitre A, Leal-Gutierrez J, Tripi J, Netzley A, Horvath A Genes Brain Behav. 2025; 24(2):e70018.

PMID: 40049657 PMC: 11884905. DOI: 10.1111/gbb.70018.


Genomic Loci Influencing Cue-Reactivity in Heterogeneous Stock Rats.

King C, Chitre A, Leal-Gutierrez J, Tripi J, Hughson A, Horvath A bioRxiv. 2024; .

PMID: 38559127 PMC: 10980002. DOI: 10.1101/2024.03.13.584852.


Environmental enrichment promotes adaptive responding during tests of behavioral regulation in male heterogeneous stock rats.

Ishiwari K, King C, Martin C, Tripi J, George A, Lamparelli A Sci Rep. 2024; 14(1):4182.

PMID: 38378969 PMC: 10879139. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-024-53943-y.

References
1.
Liley A, Gabriel D, Sable H, Simon N . Sex Differences and Effects of Predictive Cues on Delayed Punishment Discounting. eNeuro. 2019; 6(4). PMC: 6709237. DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0225-19.2019. View

2.
Key C, Ross C . Sex differences in energy expenditure in non-human primates. Proc Biol Sci. 2000; 266(1437):2479-85. PMC: 1690481. DOI: 10.1098/rspb.1999.0949. View

3.
Bayless D, Darling J, Daniel J . Mechanisms by which neonatal testosterone exposure mediates sex differences in impulsivity in prepubertal rats. Horm Behav. 2013; 64(5):764-9. DOI: 10.1016/j.yhbeh.2013.10.003. View

4.
Yates J, Horchar M, Ellis A, Kappesser J, Mbambu P, Sutphin T . Differential effects of glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor antagonists on risky choice as assessed in the risky decision task. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2020; 238(1):133-148. PMC: 7796939. DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05664-z. View

5.
Percie du Sert N, Ahluwalia A, Alam S, Avey M, Baker M, Browne W . Reporting animal research: Explanation and elaboration for the ARRIVE guidelines 2.0. PLoS Biol. 2020; 18(7):e3000411. PMC: 7360025. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pbio.3000411. View