Impulsive choice in a rodent model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Fox, Andrew T.; Hand, Dennis J.; Reilly, Mark P

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2007.09.008

Cited by 96 publications

(124 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In a compensating design, the argument is that trial length (delay aversion) is controlled for, and the independent variable is the time between response and reward. SHRs still express a switch in preference sooner than controls in this setup, suggesting that delay aversion is not a good explanation for their impulsive behaviour (Fox et al, 2008;Hand et al, 2009). Instead, the delay between response and reward delivery appears to be the main controlling variable.…”

Section: The Delay Between Response and Rewardmentioning

confidence: 80%

“…Both SHRs and people with ADHD show signs of inattention (Sagvolden, 2000;Sagvolden, Aase, Zeiner, & Berger, 1998), impulsivity (Fox et al, 2008;Malloy-Diniz, Fuentes, Leite, Correa, & Bechara, 2007), hyperactivity Sagvolden et al, 1998) and behavioural variability ( Johansen, Killeen, & Sagvolden, 2007;Scheres et al, 2008).…”

Section: The Many Assumptions Of Animal Knowledge In Animal Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Strangely, some SHR studies do not make any mention of a preference test prior to the experiment (Hand, Fox, & Reilly, 2009;Orduña, 2015;Sutherland et al, 2009;Wooters & Bardo, 2011). Others used a test, but the details (particularly regarding the criterion) are unclear (Adriani, Caprioli, Granstrem, Carli, & Laviola, 2003;Botanas et al, 2016;Fox et al, 2008;Ibias & Pellón, 2011). Sometimes a preference test was used, but included a delay component, a variable that ideally should not be introduced until the experimental phase begins (Bizot et al, 2007;Garcia & Kirkpatrick, 2013;Pardey, Homewood, Taylor, & Cornish, 2009).…”

Section: Preference Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These are instances we all recognize either in ourselves or in others, and are acts that we can label as impulsive behaviours. Impulsivity has been observed in a variety of forms across many different species, with multiple theories and mathematical equations proposed to best explain the behaviour (Fox, Hand, & Reilly, 2008;Killeen, 2015;Marco et al, 2009;Odum, 2011;Rosati, Stevens, Hare, & Hauser, 2007;Sonuga-Barke, Taylor, Sembi, & Smith, 1992;Wolff & Leander, 2002).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Food pellets (Fox et al, 2008) or water drops (Reynolds, De Wit, & Richards, 2002) are typically used for rats, with grain for pigeons (Mazur, 1987;Smethells & Reilly, 2015). In animal studies, the term used for consequences of behaviour that select, increase and control behaviour is usually reinforcer, which is a strictly behavioural term defined by its effect, and with no reference to subjective or cognitive states.…”

Section: Delay Discountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 4 more Smart Citations

Impulsivity or Sub-optimal Reward Maximization in Delay Discounting? A Critical Discussion

Sjoberg¹,

Johansen²

2018

HEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: The Delay Between Response and Rewardmentioning

confidence: 80%

Section: The Many Assumptions Of Animal Knowledge In Animal Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Preference Testmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Delay Discountingmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Impulsivity or Sub-optimal Reward Maximization in Delay Discounting? A Critical Discussion

Sjoberg¹,

Johansen²

2018

HEB

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Timing and delay discounting in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A translational approach

Fox,

Nicholson,

Singha

et al. 2023

Developmental Psychobiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) is a common neurodevelopmental disorder that often presents with abnormal time perception and increased impulsive choice behavior. The spontaneously hypertensive rat (SHR) is the most widely used preclinical model of the ADHD-Combined and ADHD-Hyperactive/Impulsive subtypes of the disorder. However, when testing the spontaneously hypertensive rat from Charles River (SHR/NCrl) on timing and impulsive choice tasks, the appropriate control strain is not clear, and it is possible that one of the possible control strains, the Wistar Kyoto from Charles River (WKY/NCrl), is an appropriate model for ADHD-Predominately Inattentive. Our goals were to test the SHR/NCrl, WKY/NCrl, and Wistar (WI; the progenitor strain for the SHR/NCrl and WKY/NCrl) strains on time perception and impulsive choice tasks to assess the validity of SHR/NCrl and WKY/NCrl as models of ADHD, and the validity of the WI strain as a control. We also sought to assess impulsive choice behavior in humans diagnosed with the three subtypes of ADHD and compare them with our findings from the preclinical models. We found SHR/NCrl rats timed faster and were more impulsive than WKY/NCrl and WI rats, and human participants diagnosed with ADHD were more impulsive compared to controls, but there were no differences between the three ADHD subtypes.

show abstract

Measurement of impulsive choice in rats: Same‐ and alternate‐form test–retest reliability and temporal tracking

Peterson

Hill

Kirkpatrick

2014

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impulsive choice is typically measured by presenting smaller-sooner (SS) versus larger-later (LL) rewards, with biases towards the SS indicating impulsivity. The current study tested rats on different impulsive choice procedures with LL delay manipulations to assess same-form and alternate-form test-retest reliability. In the systematic-GE procedure (Green & Estle, 2003), the LL delay increased after several sessions of training; in the systematic-ER procedure (Evenden & Ryan, 1996), the delay increased within each session; and in the adjusting-M procedure (Mazur, 1987), the delay changed after each block of trials within a session based on each rat’s choices in the previous block. In addition to measuring choice behavior, we also assessed temporal tracking of the LL delays using the median times of responding during LL trials. The two systematic procedures yielded similar results in both choice and temporal tracking measures following extensive training, whereas the adjusting procedure resulted in relatively more impulsive choices and poorer temporal tracking. Overall, the three procedures produced acceptable same form test-retest reliability over time, but the adjusting procedure did not show significant alternate form test-retest reliability with the other two procedures. The results suggest that systematic procedures may supply better measurements of impulsive choice in rats.

show abstract

Impulsive choice in a rodent model of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder

Cited by 96 publications

References 23 publications

Impulsivity or Sub-optimal Reward Maximization in Delay Discounting? A Critical Discussion

Impulsivity or Sub-optimal Reward Maximization in Delay Discounting? A Critical Discussion

Timing and delay discounting in attention‐deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A translational approach

Measurement of impulsive choice in rats: Same‐ and alternate‐form test–retest reliability and temporal tracking

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About