Strain differences in delay discounting between Lewis and Fischer 344 rats at baseline and following acute and chronic administration of d-amphetamine

Huskinson, Sally L.; Krebs, Christopher A.; Anderson, Karen G.

doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2012.02.005

Cited by 56 publications

(64 citation statements)

References 45 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It could be said that in adjusting to the transition from the ascending to the descending presentation order of delays, the LEWs did so more rapidly than the F344s, choosing the LL lever at higher proportions during most delays to LLR. This result is in dispute with previous findings (Anderson & Diller, 2010;Anderson & Woolverton, 2005;Huskinson et al, 2012;Madden et al, 2008;Stein et al, 2012) that showed more impulsivity in the LEWs; the assertion that the LEWs choose more impulsively than the F344s is not supported by the present study, challenging this strain difference and confirming that it may be due to procedural issues (Stein et al, 2012) and the analytical tools used to characterize impulsive choice (Madden & Johnson, 2010).…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…In conclusion, through the present study we investigated both the acquisition and maintenance of the impulsive behavior of LEWs and F344s, and found more dynamic changes in choice characterizing impulsivity than those previously reported in studies using a rapid-redetermination assessment of indifference points (e.g., Stein et al, 2012;Wilhelm & Mitchell, 2009) and steady-state procedures (e.g., Anderson & Diller, 2010;Anderson & Woolverton, 2005;Huskinson et al, 2012;Madden et al, 2008;Stein et al, 2012). Consistent with findings obtained in nonhuman (Fox et al, 2008) and human (Robles & Vargas, 2007Robles et al, 2009) animals, we found that the presentation order of delays to the LLR is important in determining the discounting rate (k in Eq.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

“…For instance, studies using an autoshaping technique (Brown & Jenkins, 1968) to establish lever pressing for food found that the LEWs acquired that behavior more rapidly and performed it at higher rates than the F344s (Kearns, Gomez-Serrano, Weiss, & Riley, 2006); similar results were documented by Anderson and Elcoro (2007) using a tandem fixed-ratio one, fixed-time 20 s schedule of reinforcement to establish lever pressing for food. Moreover, studies of impulsive choice in LEWs and F344s have shown steeper discounting functions for the former than for the latter strain of rats (e.g., Anderson & Diller, 2010;Anderson & Woolverton, 2005;Huskinson, Krebs, & Anderson, 2012;Madden, Smith, Brewer, Pinkston, & Johnson, 2008). Nonetheless, the generality of this finding has been compromised by research that failed to show differences in discounting functions between LEWs and F344s (e.g., Stein et al, 2012;Wilhelm & Mitchell, 2009).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Studies using steady-state procedures, arranging a delay/ amount combination for at least ten sessions before replacing it for a different combination, found steeper discount functions in LEWs than in F344s (e.g., Anderson & Diller, 2010;Anderson & Woolverton, 2005;Huskinson et al, 2012;Madden et al, 2008). In contrast, studies that have used a rapid-determination adjusting-amount procedure to control each delay/amount combination in series of five sessions have yielded no differences in discounting functions between LEWs and F344s (Stein et al, 2012;Wilhelm & Mitchell, 2009), suggesting that more than five sessions are required for the rapid-determination adjusting-amount procedure to detect a strain difference that is mainly driven by the LEWs.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Contemporary analyses of choice were implemented to analyze the acquisition and maintenance of response allocation in Lewis (LEW) and Fischer 344 (F344) rats. A concurrent-chains procedure varied the delay to the larger reinforcer (0.1, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 s). Delays were presented within sessions in ascending, descending, and random orders. Each condition lasted 105 days, and the entire data set was analyzed to obtain discounting functions for each block of 15 sessions and each food delivery across delay components. Both a hyperbolic-decay model and the generalized matching law described well the choices of LEW and F344 rats. Estimates of discounting rate and sensitivity to the immediacy of reinforcement correlated positively. The slope of the discounting function changed with presentation orders of the delays to the larger reinforcer. Extended training reduced differences between the LEW and F344 rats in discounting rates, sensitivity to the immediacy of reinforcement, and estimates of the area under the curve. We concluded that impulsive choice can change as a function of learning and is not a static property of behavior that is mainly determined by genetic and neurochemical mechanisms. Choosing impulsively may be an advantage for organisms searching for food in rapidly changing environments.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 48%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…While much of our work has examined impulsive choice in outbred populations, we have also assessed impulsive choice in inbred strains of rats that are potential animal models of ADHD (Garcia & Kirkpatrick, 2013). The spontaneously hypertensive (SHR) and Lewis strains have been derived from their respective control strains, the Wistar Kyotos (WKY) and Wistars, and both have been reported to demonstrate possible markers of increased impulsive choice in previous studies (Anderson & Diller, 2010;Anderson & Woolverton, 2005;Bizot et al, 2007;Fox, Hand, & Reilly, 2008;García-Lecumberri et al, 2010;Hand, Fox, & Reilly, 2009;Huskinson, Krebs, & Anderson, 2012;Madden, Smith, Brewer, Pinkston, & Johnson, 2008;Stein, Pinkston, Brewer, Francisco, & Madden, 2012). Garcia and Kirkpatrick (2013) sought to potentially isolate the source of impulsive choice behaviors to either deficits in delay or magnitude sensitivity by delivery of two different impulsive choice tasks modeled after previous research (Galtress & Kirkpatrick, 2010;Roesch, Takahashi, Gugsa, Bissonette, & Schoenbaum, 2007).…”

Section: Moderating Impulsive Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats

Kirkpatrick¹,

Marshall²,

Smith³

2015

CCBR

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Individual differences in impulsive and risky choice are key risk factors for a variety of maladaptive behaviors such as drug abuse, gambling, and obesity. In our rat model, ordered individual differences are stable across choice parameters and months of testing, and span a broad spectrum, suggesting that rats, like humans, exhibit trait-level impulsive and risky choice behaviors. In addition, impulsive and risky choices are highly correlated, suggesting a degree of correspondence between these two traits. An examination of the underlying cognitive mechanisms has suggested an important role for timing processes in impulsive choice. In addition, in an examination of genetic factors in impulsive choice, the Lewis rat strain emerged as a possible animal model for studying disordered impulsive choice, with this strain demonstrating deficient delay processing. Early rearing environment also affected impulsive behaviors, with rearing in an enriched environment promoting adaptable and more self-controlled choices. The combined results with impulsive choice suggest an important role for timing and reward sensitivity in moderating impulsive behaviors. Relative reward valuation also affects risky choice, with manipulation of objective reward value (relative to an alternative reference point) resulting in loss chasing behaviors that predicted overall risky choice behaviors. The combined results are discussed in relation to domain-specific versus domain-general subjective reward valuation processes and the potential neural substrates of impulsive and risky choice. Keywords: impulsive choice; risky choice; discounting; individual differences; ratImpulsive choice is measured by presenting a choice between a smaller reward that is available sooner (the SS) and a larger reward that is available later (the LL). Thus, the impulsive choice paradigm pits reward magnitude against delay to reward by essentially asking whether an individual is willing to wait longer to receive a better outcome (Mazur, 1987(Mazur, , 2007. Impulsive choice is indicated by preferences for the SS, particularly when those choices lead to less overall reward earning, and are thus maladaptive, whereas choices of the LL (when it is more objectively valuable) are indicative of greater self-control. Individual differences in impulsive choice are associated with numerous maladaptive behaviors and disorders such as: attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD; Barkley, Edwards, Laneri, Fletcher, & Metevia, 2001;Solanto et al., 2001;Sonuga-Barke, 2002;Sonuga-Barke, Taylor, Sembi, & Smith, 1992), pathological gambling (Alessi & Petry, 2003;MacKillop et al., 2011;Reynolds, Ortengren, Richards, & de Wit, 2006), obesity (Davis, Patte, Curtis, & Reid, 2010), and substance abuse (Bickel & Marsch, 2001). Additionally, impulsive choice has also been posited as a primary risk factor (MacKillop et al., 2011;Verdejo-García, Lawrence, & Clark, 2008) and 46 COMPARATIVE COGNITION & BEHAVIOR REVIEWSKirkpatrick, Marshall, and Smith predictor of treatment outcomes (Broos, Dierg...

show abstract

Delay‐specific stimuli and genotype interact to determine temporal discounting in a rapid‐acquisition procedure

Pope

Newland

Hutsell

2015

J Exper Analysis Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of delay discounting to many socially important behavior problems has stimulated investigations of biological and environmental mechanisms responsible for variations in the form of the discount function. The extant experimental research, however, has yielded disparate results, raising important questions regarding Gene X Environment interactions. The present study determined the influence of stimuli that uniquely signal delays to reinforcement on delay discounting in two inbred mouse strains using a rapid-acquisition procedure. BALB/c and C57BL/6 mice responded under a six-component, concurrent-chained schedule in which the terminal-link delays preceding the larger-reinforcer were presented randomly across components of an individual session. Across conditions, components were presented either with or without delay-specific auditory stimuli, i.e., as multiple or mixed schedules. A generalized matching-based model was used to incorporate the impact of current and previous component reinforcer-delay ratios on current component response allocation. Sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude and delay were higher for BALB/c mice, but within-component preference reached final levels faster for C57Bl/6 mice. For BALB/c mice, acquisition of preference across blocks of a component was faster under the multiple than the mixed schedule, but final levels of sensitivity to reinforcement were unaffected by schedule. The speed of acquisition of preference was not different across schedules for C57Bl/6 mice, but sensitivity to reinforcement was higher under the multiple than the mixed schedule. Overall, differences in the acquisition and final form of the discount function were determined by a Gene X Environment interaction, but the presence of delay-specific stimuli attenuated genotype-dependent differences in magnitude and delay sensitivity.

show abstract

Strain differences in delay discounting between Lewis and Fischer 344 rats at baseline and following acute and chronic administration of d-amphetamine

Cited by 56 publications

References 45 publications

A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

A long-term study of the impulsive choices of Lewis and Fischer 344 rats

Mechanisms of Individual Differences in Impulsive and Risky Choice in Rats

Delay‐specific stimuli and genotype interact to determine temporal discounting in a rapid‐acquisition procedure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About