Advertisement

Effects of Food Restriction and Pre-Training Length on Delay Discounting in Male Wistar Rats

  • Alaina Prince
  • Eric S. Murphy
  • Gwen LupferEmail author
Original Article
  • 4 Downloads

Abstract

Impulsivity is often measured using delay discounting, a task in which individuals must select between smaller, sooner and larger, later reinforcers. The magnitude effect is the tendency for individuals to discount larger delayed reinforcers less steeply than smaller ones. In terms of food restriction, the magnitude effect predicts that restricted subjects should behave less impulsively, because restriction may increase food reinforcer value and therefore increase subjects’ propensity to select larger, later reinforcers. However, previous research examining the effects of reinforcer restriction has not demonstrated this. In the present research, 12 male Wistar rats were exposed to a delay discounting procedure under both free-feeding and food restriction conditions. Subjects selected more larger, later reinforcers when restricted to ~85% of their free-feeding weights, which is consistent with the magnitude effect. In addition, we systematically examined the effects of shortening the second training phase of a common delay discounting procedure (i.e., Evenden & Ryan, 1996, 1999), during which responses produced the immediate delivery of either one or five reinforcers. The number of sessions in the second training phase did not affect discounting once delays were imposed, indicating that future researchers may shorten this training phase without affecting impulsive responding.

Keywords

Delay discounting Impulsivity Food restriction Magnitude effect 

Notes

Acknowledgements

This research was supported by a grant from the UAA Honors College’s Office of Undergraduate Research and Scholarship. Data from this manuscript were presented at the 44th annual conference of the Association for Behavior Analysis International in San Diego, California. The authors thank Kailey Tobin and Cassandra Anderson for assistance with data collection.

Compliance with Ethical Standards

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest. All applicable international, national, and/or institutional guidelines for the care and use of animals were followed, and procedures were approved by the university’s Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee (IACUC IRBNet protocol # 767807).

References

  1. Adams, C. D. (1982). Variations in the sensitivity of instrumental responding to reinforcer devaluation. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative & Physiological Psychology, 34B(2), 77–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adriani, W., Boyer, F., Gioiosa, L., Macri, S., Dreyer, J. L., & Laviola, G. (2009). Increased impulsive behavior and risk proneness following lentivirus-mediated dopamine transporter over-expression in rats’ nucleus accumbens. Neuroscience, 159(1), 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Adriani, W., Rea, M., Baviera, M., Invernizzi, W., Carli, M., Ghirardi, O., et al. (2004). Acetyl-l-carnitine reduces impulsive behaviour in adolescent rats. Psychopharmacology, 176(3–4), 296–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Adriani, W., Seta, D. D., Dessi-Fulgheri, F., Farabollini, F., & Laviola, G. (2003). Altered profiles of spontaneous novelty seeking, impulsive behavior, and response to D-amphetamine in rats perinatally exposed to bisphenol A. Environmental Health Perspectives, 111(4), 395–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bailey, C., Peterson, J. R., Schnegelsiepen, A., Stuebing, S. L., & Kirkpatrick, K. (2018). Durability and generalizability of time-based intervention effects on impulsive choice in rats. Behavioural Processes, 152, 54–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Borges, A. M., Kuang, J., Milhorn, H., & Yi, R. (2016). An alternative approach to calculating area-under-the-curve (AUC) in delay discounting research. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 106(2), 145–155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Evenden, J. L., & Ryan, C. N. (1996). The pharmacology of impulsive behaviour in rats: The effects of drugs on response choice with varying delays of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology, 128(2), 161–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Evenden, J. L., & Ryan, C. N. (1999). The pharmacology of impulsive behaviour in rats VI: The effects of ethanol and selective serotonergic drugs on response choice with varying delays of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology, 146(4), 413–421.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grace, R. C., Sargisson, R. J., & White, K. G. (2012). Evidence for a magnitude effect in temporal discounting with pigeons. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 38, 102–108.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Griffin, S. A., Lynam, D. R., & Samuel, D. B. (2017). Dimensional conceptualizations of impulsivity. Personality Disorders: Theory, Research, & Treatment, 17, 1–13.Google Scholar
  11. Hernandez, C. M., Vetere, L. M., Orsini, C. A., McQuail, J. A., Maurer, A. P., Burke, S. N., et al. (2017). Decline of prefrontal cortical-mediated executive functions but attenuated delay discounting in aged Fischer 344 x brown Norway hybrid rats. Neurobiology of Aging, 60, 141–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Holland, P. C. (2004). Relations between Pavlovian-instrumental transfer and reinforcer devaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 30(2), 104–117.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hollander, E., & Rosen, J. (2000). Impulsivity. Journal of Psychopharmacology, 14(2), S39–S44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Huskinson, S. L., Krebs, C. A., & Anderson, K. G. (2012). Strain differences in delay discounting between Lewis and Fischer 344 rats at baseline and following acute and chronic administration of d-amphetamine. Pharmacology, Biochemistry & Behavior, 101(3), 403–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Krebs, C. A., Reilly, W. J., & Anderson, K. G. (2016). Reinforcer magnitude affects delay discounting and influences effects of d-amphetamine in rats. Behavioural Processes, 130, 39–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Levesque, R. J. R. (2011). Impulsivity. In R. J. R. Levesque (Ed.), Encyclopedia of adolescence (pp. 1399–1401). New York, NY: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Michael, J. (1993). Establishing operations. The Behavior Analyst, 16(2), 191–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Myerson, J., Green, L., & Warusawitharana, M. (2001). Area under the curve as a measure of discounting. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 76(2), 235–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Nettle, D. (2017). Does hunger contribute to socioeconomic gradients in behavior? Frontiers in Psychology, 8. Article ID, 358.Google Scholar
  20. Odum, A. L. (2011a). Delay discounting: I’m a K, you’re a K. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 96(3), 427–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Odum, A. L. (2011b). Delay discounting: Trait variable? Behavioural Processes, 87(1), 1–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Oliveira, L., Calvert, A. L., Green, L., & Myerson, J. (2013). Level of deprivation does not affect degree of discounting in pigeons. Learning & Behavior, 41(2), 148–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Orquin, J. L., & Kurzban, R. (2016). A meta-analysis of blood glucose effects on human decision making. Psychological Bulletin, 142(5), 546–567.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ostaszewski, P., Karzel, K., & Szafranska, P. (2003). Changes in discounting rates as adaptation to food deprivation in rats: The role of age and deprivation level. Polish Psychological Bulletin, 34(4), 203–211.Google Scholar
  25. Ozga, J. E., & Anderson, K. G. (2018). Reduction in delay discounting due to nicotine and its attenuation by cholinergic antagonists in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats. Psychopharmacology, 235(1), 155–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ozten, M., Erol, A., Karayilan, S., Kapudan, H., Orsel, E. S., & Kumsar, N. A. (2015). Impulsivity in bipolar and substance use disorders. Comprehensive Psychiatry, 59, 28–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Richards, J. B., Mitchell, S. H., De Wit, H., & Seiden, L. S. (1997). Determination of discount functions in rats with an adjusting-amount procedure. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior, 67(3), 353–366.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sidman, M. (1960). Tactic of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  29. Tian, L., Qin, X., Sun, J., Li, X., & Wei, L. (2016). Differential effects of co-administration of oxotremorine with SCH 23390 on impulsive choice in high-impulsive rats and low-impulsive rats. Pharmacology, Biochemistry, & Behavior, 142, 56–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Tricomi, E., Balleine, B. W., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2009). A specific role for posterior dorsolateral striatum in human habit learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 29(11), 2225–2232.Google Scholar
  31. Vanderveldt, A., Oliveira, L., & Green, L. (2016). Delay discounting: Pigeon, rat, human—Does it matter? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning & Cognition, 42(2), 141–162.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Behavior Analysis International 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Alaska AnchorageAnchorageUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Alaska AnchorageAnchorageUSA

Personalised recommendations