Sensitivity to outcome devaluation in operant tasks is better predicted by food restriction level than reinforcement training schedule in mice
Chevee, M.; Kim, C. J.; Crow, N.; Follman, E. G.; Calipari, E. S.
Show abstract
Behavioral strategies are often classified based on whether reinforcement is controlled by the value of the reinforcer. Value-sensitive behaviors, in which animals update their actions when reinforcer value is changed, are classified as goal-directed; conversely, value-insensitive actions, where behavior remains consistent when the reinforcer is removed or devalued, are considered habitual. Understanding the features of operant training that bias behavioral control toward either strategy is essential to understanding the cognitive and neuronal processes on which they rely. Using basic reinforcement principles, behavior can be biased toward relying on either process: random ratio (RR) schedules are thought to promote the formation of goal-directed behaviors while random intervals (RI) promote habitual control. However, how the schedule-specific features of these task structures relate to external factors to influence behavior is not well understood. Using male and female mice on distinct food restriction levels, we trained each group on RR schedules with responses-per-reinforcer rates matched to their RI counterparts to control for differences in reinforcement rate. We determined that food restriction level has a stronger effect on the behavior of mice following RR schedules than mice following RI schedules and that food restriction better predicted sensitivity to outcome devaluation than training schedule. Our results support the idea the relationships between RR or RI schedules with goal-directed or habitual behaviors, respectively, are more nuanced than previously appreciated and suggest that an animals engagement in a task must be accounted for, together with the structure of reinforcement schedules, to appropriately interpret the cognitive underpinnings of behavior. Significance statementUnderstanding the basic learning principles that control behavior is essential to developing therapies for psychiatric disorders such as addiction or obsessive-compulsive disorder. Reinforcement schedules are thought to control the reliance on habitual versus goal-directed control during adaptive behaviors. However, external factors that are independent of training schedule also influence behavior, for example by modulating motivation or energy balance. In this study, we find that food restriction levels are at least equally important as reinforcement schedules in shaping adaptive behavior. Our results add to the growing body of work showing the distinction between habitual and goal-directed control is nuanced.
Matching journals
The top 8 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Triggered Temptations: A New Procedure to Compare Reward-Seeking Behaviour Induced by Discriminative and Conditioned Stimuli in Rats 96%
- Knowledge by omission: the significance of omissions in the 5-choice serial reaction time task 96%
- Metabotropic group II glutamate receptors in the basolateral amygdala mediate cue-triggered increases in incentive motivation 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Rodent perirhinal cortex, but not ventral hippocampus, inhibition induces approach bias under object-based approach-avoidance conflict 96%
- Devaluation-sensitive responding to preconditioned cues requires orbitofrontal cortex during initial cue-cue learning 96%
- Sex differences in discrimination behavior and orbitofrontal engagement during context-gated reward prediction 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Agency rescues competition for credit assignment among predictive cues from adverse learning conditions 96%
- Environmental enrichment promotes adaptive responding during tests of behavioral regulation in male heterogeneous stock rats 96%
- Uncertainty and reward histories have distinct effects on decisions after wins and losses 96%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.