You are How You Eat: Foraging Behavior as a Potential Novel Marker of Rat Affective State

IF 2.1 Q2 PSYCHOLOGY
Vikki Neville, Emily Finnegan, Elizabeth S. Paul, Molly Davidson, Peter Dayan, Michael Mendl
{"title":"You are How You Eat: Foraging Behavior as a Potential Novel Marker of Rat Affective State","authors":"Vikki Neville,&nbsp;Emily Finnegan,&nbsp;Elizabeth S. Paul,&nbsp;Molly Davidson,&nbsp;Peter Dayan,&nbsp;Michael Mendl","doi":"10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>Effective and safe foraging requires animals to behave according to the expectations they have about the rewards, threats, and costs in their environment. Since these factors are thought to be reflected in the animals’ affective states, we can use foraging behavior as a window into those states. In this study, rats completed a foraging task in which they had repeatedly to decide whether to continue to harvest a food source despite increasing time costs, or to forgo food to switch to a different food source. Rats completed this task across two experiments using manipulations designed to induce both positive and negative, and shorter- and longer- term changes in affective state: removal and return of enrichment (Experiment 1), implementation and reversal of an unpredictable housing treatment (Experiment 1), and delivery of rewards (tickling or sucrose) and punishers (air-puff or back-handling) immediately prior to testing (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, rats completed fewer trials and were more prone to switching between troughs when housed in standard, compared to enriched, housing conditions. In Experiment 2, rats completed more trials following pre-test tickling compared to pre-test sucrose delivery. However, we also found that they were prone to disengaging from the task, suggesting they were really choosing between three options: ‘harvest’, ‘switch’, or ‘not work’. This limits the straightforward interpretation of the results. At present, foraging behavior within the context of this task cannot reliably be used as an indicator of an affective state in animals.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":72119,"journal":{"name":"Affective science","volume":"5 3","pages":"232 - 245"},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2024-06-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11461729/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Affective science","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Effective and safe foraging requires animals to behave according to the expectations they have about the rewards, threats, and costs in their environment. Since these factors are thought to be reflected in the animals’ affective states, we can use foraging behavior as a window into those states. In this study, rats completed a foraging task in which they had repeatedly to decide whether to continue to harvest a food source despite increasing time costs, or to forgo food to switch to a different food source. Rats completed this task across two experiments using manipulations designed to induce both positive and negative, and shorter- and longer- term changes in affective state: removal and return of enrichment (Experiment 1), implementation and reversal of an unpredictable housing treatment (Experiment 1), and delivery of rewards (tickling or sucrose) and punishers (air-puff or back-handling) immediately prior to testing (Experiment 2). In Experiment 1, rats completed fewer trials and were more prone to switching between troughs when housed in standard, compared to enriched, housing conditions. In Experiment 2, rats completed more trials following pre-test tickling compared to pre-test sucrose delivery. However, we also found that they were prone to disengaging from the task, suggesting they were really choosing between three options: ‘harvest’, ‘switch’, or ‘not work’. This limits the straightforward interpretation of the results. At present, foraging behavior within the context of this task cannot reliably be used as an indicator of an affective state in animals.

你是怎么吃的觅食行为是大鼠情感状态的潜在新标记。
有效和安全的觅食要求动物的行为符合它们对环境中的奖励、威胁和成本的预期。由于这些因素被认为反映在动物的情感状态中,因此我们可以利用觅食行为作为了解这些状态的窗口。在这项研究中,大鼠完成了一项觅食任务,在这项任务中,它们需要反复决定是在时间成本不断增加的情况下继续收获食物,还是放弃食物转而寻找其他食物来源。大鼠在两次实验中完成了这项任务,实验中采用了旨在诱导大鼠情绪状态发生积极和消极、短期和长期变化的操作方法:移除和恢复富集(实验 1)、实施和撤销不可预测的饲养处理(实验 1)以及在测试前立即给予奖励(搔痒或蔗糖)和惩罚(吹气或背摔)(实验 2)。在实验 1 中,与富集饲养条件相比,在标准饲养条件下大鼠完成的试验更少,而且更容易在食槽之间切换。在实验 2 中,大鼠在测试前搔痒后完成的试验比测试前蔗糖输送后完成的试验要多。但是,我们也发现,它们很容易从任务中脱离出来,这表明它们实际上是在三个选项中进行选择:收获"、"转换 "或 "不工作"。这就限制了对结果的直接解释。目前,这项任务中的觅食行为还不能可靠地用作动物情感状态的指标:在线版本包含补充材料,可查阅 10.1007/s42761-024-00242-4。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信