Willingness to work for sucrose: Impact of schedules, reinforcer alternatives, homeostatic value, and individual differences in male mice.

IF 1.9 4区 心理学 Q3 BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES
Learning & Behavior Pub Date : 2026-06-01 Epub Date: 2025-11-06 DOI:10.3758/s13420-025-00695-y
Edgar Arias-Sandoval, Carla Carratalá-Ros, Paula Matas-Navarro, John D Salamone, Mercè Correa
{"title":"Willingness to work for sucrose: Impact of schedules, reinforcer alternatives, homeostatic value, and individual differences in male mice.","authors":"Edgar Arias-Sandoval, Carla Carratalá-Ros, Paula Matas-Navarro, John D Salamone, Mercè Correa","doi":"10.3758/s13420-025-00695-y","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Motivated behavior is characterized by a high degree of behavioral activation and effort. Preclinical models of operant effort-based decision-making are useful for studying motivational symptoms seen in many psychopathologies as well as observing individual vulnerability. In this study, we evaluated the impact of having alternative reward choices with different effort demands on the decision-making process that may lead to individual differences in working. Adult CD1 male mice, trained on a fixed ratio (FR) 8, were divided into two groups: the no-choice (FR8 for 10% sucrose) and choice (FR8 for 10% sucrose plus concurrent free access to 3% sucrose) conditions. After 5 weeks, a progressive ratio (PROG) schedule was introduced under the same choice conditions. Results indicate that only the no-choice group adjusted their work-output after changing from FR8 to PROG. The choice group did not increase lever pressing when PROG was introduced, but it maintained total fluid intake (10% plus 3%). Water restriction increased intake of all fluids in both choice conditions, independently of the effort required. Additionally, a median split based on PROG performance was used to compare high and low performers. Individual differences in lever pressing were seen under both choice conditions, but only high-performers significantly increased work output when PROG was introduced. Among the choice group, high-PROG performers did not increase total volume obtained compared with low-performers. Thus, the choice condition induced individual differences based mostly on willingness to work rather than to obtain the maximum amount of reinforcer. Further studies in both sexes should characterize this \"high-worker\" profile.</p>","PeriodicalId":49914,"journal":{"name":"Learning & Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"229-242"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2026-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13194295/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Learning & Behavior","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-025-00695-y","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/11/6 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"BEHAVIORAL SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Motivated behavior is characterized by a high degree of behavioral activation and effort. Preclinical models of operant effort-based decision-making are useful for studying motivational symptoms seen in many psychopathologies as well as observing individual vulnerability. In this study, we evaluated the impact of having alternative reward choices with different effort demands on the decision-making process that may lead to individual differences in working. Adult CD1 male mice, trained on a fixed ratio (FR) 8, were divided into two groups: the no-choice (FR8 for 10% sucrose) and choice (FR8 for 10% sucrose plus concurrent free access to 3% sucrose) conditions. After 5 weeks, a progressive ratio (PROG) schedule was introduced under the same choice conditions. Results indicate that only the no-choice group adjusted their work-output after changing from FR8 to PROG. The choice group did not increase lever pressing when PROG was introduced, but it maintained total fluid intake (10% plus 3%). Water restriction increased intake of all fluids in both choice conditions, independently of the effort required. Additionally, a median split based on PROG performance was used to compare high and low performers. Individual differences in lever pressing were seen under both choice conditions, but only high-performers significantly increased work output when PROG was introduced. Among the choice group, high-PROG performers did not increase total volume obtained compared with low-performers. Thus, the choice condition induced individual differences based mostly on willingness to work rather than to obtain the maximum amount of reinforcer. Further studies in both sexes should characterize this "high-worker" profile.

为蔗糖而工作的意愿:时间表的影响,强化剂的选择,体内平衡值,以及雄性小鼠的个体差异。
动机行为以高度的行为激活和努力为特征。操作性努力决策的临床前模型对于研究许多精神病理学中的动机症状以及观察个体脆弱性是有用的。在本研究中,我们评估了具有不同努力需求的不同奖励选择对决策过程的影响,这可能导致工作中的个体差异。在固定比例(FR) 8的训练下,成年CD1雄性小鼠被分为两组:无选择(FR8为10%蔗糖)和选择(FR8为10%蔗糖加同时自由获得3%蔗糖)条件。5周后,在相同的选择条件下引入渐进比率(PROG)计划。结果表明,只有无选择组在FR8改为PROG后调整了工作产出。选择组在引入PROG时没有增加杠杆按压,但保持总液体摄入量(10%加3%)。在两种选择条件下,水限制增加了所有液体的摄入量,与所需的努力无关。此外,基于PROG性能的中位数分割用于比较高绩效和低绩效。在两种选择条件下,按压杠杆都存在个体差异,但当引入PROG时,只有高绩效者显著增加了工作产出。在选择组中,高prog表现者没有比低表现者增加获得的总容积。因此,选择条件引起的个体差异主要是基于工作意愿,而不是基于获得最大的强化物。对两性的进一步研究应该能确定这种“高水平工作者”的特征。
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
Learning & Behavior
Learning & Behavior 医学-动物学
CiteScore
2.90
自引率
5.60%
发文量
50
审稿时长
>12 weeks
期刊介绍: Learning & Behavior publishes experimental and theoretical contributions and critical reviews concerning fundamental processes of learning and behavior in nonhuman and human animals. Topics covered include sensation, perception, conditioning, learning, attention, memory, motivation, emotion, development, social behavior, and comparative investigations.
×
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:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书