No evidence tube entrapment distresses rodents in typical empathy tests.

In the first two experiments an empty tube open at one end was placed in different locations. Male hamsters, tested one at a time, tended to stay close to the tube or in it. During the first minute of the first 4 sessions of Experiment 3, the hamster was unrestrained. If it entered the tube, it was locked within the tube. If it did not enter the tube during the first min, it was placed in it, and the tube was locked. Fifteen min later, the tube was opened, and the hamster was unrestrained for a further 20 min. The tube remained open during Session 5. Hamsters spent more time near the tube than predicted by chance and continued to enter the tube although tube-occupancy duration did not differ from chance levels. In Experiment 4, male rats were tested in two groups: rats in one group had been previously trapped in a tube and rats in the other group allowed to freely explore the test space. For the first two min of each of four 20-min sessions, trapped-group subjects were permitted to move about the chamber unless they entered the tube. In that case, they were locked in for the remainder of the session. If, after two min, they did not enter the tube, they were locked in it for the remaining 18 min. Free rats were unrestricted in all sessions. In Session 5, when both groups were permitted to move freely in the chamber, trapped and free rats spent more time in and near the tube than predicted by chance. These data show tube restraint does not seem to distress either hamsters or rats.

Opening the cocaine economy by providing within-session access to a cheaper source of cocaine makes demand for it more elastic.

Previous studies found that opening the cocaine economy by providing postsession access to cocaine had no effect on animals' demand for cocaine, whereas postsession access to saccharin or food made demand for these nondrug reinforcers more elastic. It is possible that there was no effect of economy type on cocaine taking in these earlier studies because of the delay to the postsession cocaine in the open economy. The present experiment tested whether forming an open economy by providing additional within-session cocaine, rather than postsession cocaine, would make rats' demand for cocaine more elastic. Saccharin was used as a nondrug comparison reinforcer. Three groups of rats pressed one lever for cocaine and one for saccharin on an ascending series of fixed ratio (FR) schedules where the number of responses required per reinforcer increased from 1 to 48 over sessions. In the open cocaine and open saccharin economy groups, rats had occasional access during the session to a third lever where cocaine or saccharin reinforcers, respectively, were always available on an FR-1 schedule. The main finding was that demand for cocaine was more elastic in the open cocaine economy group than in either of the other groups. Demand for saccharin was more elastic in the open saccharin economy group than in the open cocaine economy group. This study shows that cocaine taking is sensitive to economy type when the additional source of cocaine in an open economy is available close in time to when rats work for cocaine.

The effect of nicotine pre-exposure on demand for cocaine and sucrose in male rats.

The aim of the present study was to determine how nicotine pre-exposure affects the elasticity of demand for intravenous cocaine and for sucrose pellets in adult male rats. In Experiment 1, demand for cocaine was assessed in rats that had nicotine in their drinking water. Nicotine pre-exposure significantly decreased rats' willingness to defend cocaine consumption as the price (measured as the number of responses per cocaine infusion) increased compared with a control group with no nicotine pre-exposure. That is, nicotine increased the elasticity of demand for cocaine infusions. Experiment 2 repeated the first experiment, but with rats working for sucrose pellets instead of cocaine. Nicotine pre-exposure had no effect on the elasticity of demand for sucrose. This pattern of results suggests that nicotine pre-exposure can reduce the reinforcing effects of cocaine, but not sucrose, in adult male rats.

Does a rat release a soaked conspecific due to empathy?

In Experiment 1, rats choosing in an E maze preferred to release a rat standing in a pool of water to dry ground over a rat already standing on dry ground. Five additional experiments showed that the choosing rat's preference for releasing the wet rat was maintained by two separable outcomes: (1) the social contact offered by the released rat and (2) the reinforcing value of proximity to a pool of water. These results call into question Sato et al.'s (Anim Cogn 18:1039-1047, 2015) claim to have demonstrated that a rat's releasing of a wet rat to dry ground is empathically motivated.

Essential values of cocaine and non-drug alternatives predict the choice between them.

This study investigated the relationship between reinforcer value and choice between cocaine and two non-drug alternative reinforcers in rats. The essential value (EV, a behavioral economic measure based on elasticity of demand) of intravenous cocaine and food (Experiment 1) or saccharin (Experiment 2) was determined in the first phase of each experiment. Food had higher EV than cocaine, whereas the EVs of cocaine and saccharin did not differ. In the second phase of each experiment, rats were allowed to make mutually exclusive choices between cocaine and the non-drug alternative reinforcer. The main findings were that the EV of cocaine was a positive predictor of cocaine preference and the EV of food or saccharin was a negative predictor of cocaine preference. An analysis of within-session patterns of choice behavior revealed sequential dependencies, whereby rats were more likely to choose cocaine on a particular trial after having chosen the non-drug alternative on previous trials. When the time between choices was increased, these sequential dependencies disappeared. The results of these experiments are consistent with the suggestion that addiction-like behavior involves both overvaluation of drug reinforcers and undervaluation of non-drug reinforcers.

Scaling reward value with demand curves versus preference tests.

In Experiment 1, six capuchins lifted a weight during a 10-min session to receive a food piece. Across conditions, the weight was increased across six different amounts for three different food types. The number of food pieces obtained as a function of the weight lifted was fitted by a demand equation that is hypothesized to quantify food value. For most subjects, this analysis showed that the three food types differed little in value. In Experiment 2, these monkeys were given pairwise choices among these food types. In 13 of 18 comparisons, preferences at least equaled a 3-to-1 ratio; in seven comparisons, preference was absolute. There was no relation between values based on degree of preference versus values based on the demand equation. When choices in the present report were compared to similar data with these subjects from another study, between-study lability in preference emerged. This outcome contrasts with the finding in demand analysis that test-retest reliability is high. We attribute the unreliability and extreme assignment of value based on preference tests to high substitutability between foods. We suggest use of demand analysis instead of preference tests for studies that compare the values of different foods. A better strategy might be to avoid manipulating value by using different foods. Where possible, value should be manipulated by varying amounts of a single food type because, over an appropriate range, more food is consistently more valuable than less. Such an approach would be immune to problems in between-food substitutability.

Dose and elasticity of demand for self-administered cocaine in rats.

The present experiment tested whether the elasticity of demand for self-administered cocaine in rats is dose-dependent. Subjects lever pressed for three different doses of intravenous cocaine - 0.11, 0.33, and 1.0 mg/kg/infusion - on a demand procedure where the number of lever presses required per infusion increased within a session. The main finding was that demand for the 0.11 mg/kg dose was more elastic than it was for the two larger doses. There was no difference in demand elasticity between the 0.33 and 1.0 mg/kg doses. These results parallel findings previously reported in monkeys. The present study also demonstrated that a within-session procedure can be used to generate reliable demand curves.

A randomized, double-blind, crossover study to evaluate the depth response relationship of intradermal capsaicin-induced pain and hyperalgesia in healthy adult volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate pain and hyperalgesia in response to different depths of intradermal (ID) capsaicin injections in healthy volunteers. DESIGN: Double-blind, cross-over study. SETTING: Clinical Research Laboratory. SUBJECTS: Fifteen healthy male subjects received ID capsaicin injections into the volar aspect of each forearm at depths of 1 mm, 3 mm, 5 mm, and 7 mm. After injection, spontaneous pain, elicited pain, flare response, heat thresholds, and area of hyperalgesia were measured at various time points. OUTCOMES MEASURE: Spontaneous pain, elicited pain (pinprick, stroking, and hot pain), hyperalgesia area, and allodynia area. RESULTS: No significant difference was found between any depths in spontaneous pain, elicited pain (pinprick, stroking, hot pain), hyperalgesia area, or allodynia area. A significant difference was found in the change in heat threshold between 5 mm and 1 mm, 7 mm and 1 mm, 5 mm and 3 mm, 7 mm and 3 mm depths. A significant difference was found in flare area between 5 mm and 3 mm depths. A significant difference was found in systolic blood pressure area under the curve (AUC) between 7 mm and 1 mm depths, and for both systolic and diastolic pressures for 5 mm and 1 mm depths, and 5 mm and 3 mm depths. A significant difference was found in pulse AUC between 5 mm and 1 mm depths and 5 mm and 3 mm depths. CONCLUSIONS: Injection of capsaicin at different depths in the skin had different effects on heart rate and blood pressure but no effect on pain. These results may have implications on the pharmacology and analgesic predictive value of the model of ID capsaicin.

Inter-response-time reinforcement and relative reinforcer frequency control choice.

In Conditions 1 and 3 of our Experiment 1, rats pressed levers for food in a two-component multiple schedule. The first component was concurrent variable-ratio (VR) 20 variable-interval (VI) 90 s, and the second was concurrent yoked VI (its reinforcement rate equaled that of the prior component's VR) VI 90 s. In Condition 2, the VR was changed to tandem VR 20, differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) 0.8 s. Local response rates were higher in the VR than in the yoked VI schedule, and this difference disappeared between tandem VR DRL and yoked VI. The relative time allocations to VR and yoked VI, as well as to tandem VR DRL and yoked VI, were approximately the same across conditions. In Experiment 2, rats chose in a single session between five different VI pairs, each lasting for 12 reinforcer presentations (variable-environment procedure). The across-schedule hourly reinforcement rates were 120 and 40, respectively, in Conditions 1-3 and 4-6. During Conditions 2 and 5, one lever's VI was changed to tandem VI, DRL 2 s. High covariation between relative time allocations and relative reinforcer frequencies, as well as invariance in local response rates to the schedules, was evident in all conditions. In addition, the relative local response rates were biased toward the unchanged VI in Conditions 2 and 5. These results demonstrate two-process control of choice: Inter-response-time reinforcement controls the local response rate, and relative reinforcer frequency controls relative time allocations.

Desire for social contact, not empathy, may explain "rescue" behavior in rats.

Ben-Ami Bartal et al. (Science 334:1427-1430, 2011) showed that a rat in an open space (free rat) would touch the front door of a restraining tube to open its rear door, thereby enabling a rat trapped within (trapped rat) to enter a larger space that was farther away from the free rat. Since opening the rear door distanced the trapped rat from the free rat, Ben-Ami Bartal et al. argued free-rat behavior could not be motivated by the pursuit of social contact. Instead, this rat was empathically motivated, its goal being to reduce the presumed distress of the rat trapped in the restraining tube. In two experiments, we show that (a) a free rat will not learn to touch the front door to open the rear door when it is the first condition of the experiment; (b) over time, a trapped rat will often return to a restraining tube despite its presumed aversiveness; and (c) a free rat experienced in touching the front door will continue to touch it even if touching does not free the trapped rat. We explain these results and Ben-Ami Bartal et al.'s in terms of two processes, neophobia and the pursuit of social contact. When first placed in a restraining tube, neophobia causes the trapped rat to escape the tube when the rear door is opened. Across sessions, neophobia diminishes, permitting the rats' pursuit of social contact to emerge and dominate free- and trapped-rat behavior.

Defining reward value by cross-modal scaling.

Researchers in comparative psychology often use different food rewards in their studies, with food values defined by a pre-experimental preference test. While this technique rank orders food values, it provides limited information about value differences because preferences may reflect not only value differences, but also the degree to which one good may "substitute" for another (e.g., one food may substitute well for another food, but neither substitutes well for water). We propose scaling the value of food pairs by a third food that is less substitutable for either food offered in preference tests (cross-modal scaling). Here, Cebus monkeys chose between four pairwise alternatives: fruits A versus B; cereal amount X versus fruit A and cereal amount Y versus fruit B where X and Y were adjusted to produce indifference between each cereal amount and each fruit; and cereal amounts X versus Y. When choice was between perfect substitutes (different cereal amounts), preferences were nearly absolute; so too when choice was between close substitutes (fruits); however, when choice was between fruits and cereal amounts, preferences were more modest and less likely due to substitutability. These results suggest that scaling between-good value differences in terms of a third, less-substitutable good may be better than simple preference tests in defining between-good value differences.

Cocaine and heroin interact differently with nondrug reinforcers in a choice situation.

The present study used a rat choice model to test how cocaine or heroin economically interacted with two different nondrug reinforcers along the substitute-to-complement continuum. In Experiment 1, the nondrug alternative was the negative reinforcer timeout-from-avoidance (TOA)-that is, rats could press a lever to obtain a period of safety from footshock. One group of rats chose between cocaine and TOA and another group chose between heroin and TOA. The relative prices of the reinforcers were manipulated across phases while controlling for potential income effects. When cocaine was the reinforcer, rats reacted to price changes by increasing their allocation of behavior to the more expensive option, thereby maintaining relatively proportional intake of cocaine and TOA reinforcers across prices, suggesting these reinforcers were complements here. In contrast, when heroin became relatively cheap, rats increased allocation of income to heroin and decreased allocation of income to TOA, suggesting that heroin substituted for safety. Additionally, rats were willing to accept more footshocks when heroin was easily available. In Experiment 2, the nondrug alternative was saccharin, a positive reinforcer. Heroin and saccharin were complements, but there was no consistent effect of price changes on the allocation of behavior between cocaine and saccharin. As a model of the processes that could be involved in human drug use, these results show that drug-taking behavior depends on the type of drug, the type of nondrug alternative available, and the prices of both. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Human risky choice in a repeated-gambles procedure: an up-linkage replication of Lakshminarayanan, Chen and Santos (2011).

Lakshminarayanan et al. (J Exp Soc Psychol 47: 689-693, 2011) showed that when choice is between variable (risky) and fixed (safe) food amounts with the same expected values, capuchins prefer the safe alternative if choice is framed as a gain, but the risky alternative if it is framed as a loss. These results seem similar to those seen in human prospect-theory tests in choice between variable and fixed gains or losses. Based on this similarity, they interpreted their results as identifying a between-species commonality in cognitive function. In this report, we repeat their experiment with humans as subjects (an up-linkage replication). Whether choices were rewarded with candy or nickels, choice approximated indifference whether framed as gains or losses. Our data mirror those of others who found that when humans make risky choices within a repeated-trials procedure without verbal instruction about outcome likelihoods, preference biases seen in one-shot, language-guided, prospect-theory tests such as Tversky and Kahneman's (Science 211:453-458, 1981) reflection effect may not appear. The disparity between our findings and those of Lakshminarayanan et al. suggests their study does not evidence a cognitive process shared by humans and capuchins.

Time preferences in long-tailed macaques (Macaca fascicularis) and humans (Homo sapiens).

Rosati et al. (Curr Biol 17(19):1663-1668, 2007) found in a self-control test in which choice was between a smaller, immediately delivered food and a larger, delayed food, that chimpanzees preferred the larger reward (self-control); humans, however, preferred the smaller reward (impulsivity). They attributed their results to a species difference in self-control. In Experiment 1, monkeys (long-tailed macaques) were exposed to a self-control task in two conditions: where the food was hidden under differently colored bowls and where it was visible. When these two conditions were compared, choice shifted from greater preference for the impulsive alternative in the hidden condition to greater preference for the self-control alternative in the visible condition. Additionally, in both conditions, preference shifted from self-control to impulsivity over sessions. These results were explained in terms of the reversed-contingency effect (a propensity to reach for more over less when rewards are visible) and not to a capacity for self-control. In Experiment 2, humans that demonstrated preference for more over less in choice preferred the impulsive alternative when choice to either alternative was followed by the same intertrial interval-a preference that accelerates trial rates relative to preference of the self-control alternative. When trial rates were equated so that neither choice accelerated session's end, humans demonstrated self-control. These results suggest that Rosati et al.'s demonstration of impulsivity in humans was due to participants' desire to minimize session time.

Purchase task sensitivity to drug and nondrug reinforcers in opioid-agonist treatment patients.

The behavioral economics of substance abuse has been increasingly recognized as a method of determining the value of abused substances for individuals who use those substances. It has been hypothesized that such analyses could serve as a clinical tool and that demand functions can be targeted predictors for the level of intervention necessary. This study evaluated the sensitivity of a demand task in 2 patient groups in a medication assisted treatment program (methadone maintenance), those who had used opioids in the last 2 months and those who had not used opioids in at least 18 months. Demand for 7 drugs and a control was assessed using hypothetical purchase tasks. Participants maintaining long-term abstinence had significantly higher α (sensitivity to price) and lower Q0 (intensity of demand) for heroin than participants who had recently used opioids. Further research is necessary to illustrate if treatment is responsible for this reduction in demand. If so, demand analyses may provide clinical utility as an aid for treatment planning or as a target for treatment.

Rational maximizing by humans (Homo sapiens) in an ultimatum game.

In the human mini-ultimatum game, a proposer splits a sum of money with a responder. If the responder accepts, both are paid. If not, neither is paid. Typically, responders reject inequitable distributions, favoring punishing over maximizing. In Jensen et al.'s (Science 318:107-109, 2007) adaptation with apes, a proposer selects between two distributions of raisins. Despite inequitable offers, responders often accept, thereby maximizing. The rejection response differs between the human and ape versions of this game. For humans, rejection is instantaneous; for apes, it requires 1 min of inaction. We replicate Jensen et al.'s procedure in humans with money. When waiting 1 min to reject, humans favor punishing over maximizing; however, when rejection requires 5 min of inaction, humans, like apes, maximize. If species differences in time horizons are accommodated, Jensen et al.'s ape data are reproducible in humans.

Rats (Rattus norvegicus) find occupancy of a restraint tube rewarding.

Two experiments evaluated whether rats' occupancy of a restraint tube is reinforcing. In Experiment 1, each rat in the 0-min group moved freely in a chamber where a wall blocked access to a restraint tube. After 10 min the wall was removed, permitting 15 min of chamber access and tube entry. The other 2 groups were locked in the tube for 10 and 20 min respectively before release into the chamber for 15 min. Across sessions, rats locked up for 10 and 20 min entered the tube more frequently than rats in the 0-min group, and during the first 2 sessions rats in the 20-min group stayed in the tube longer than the other groups. Over sessions this difference disappeared. However, for all groups and sessions the mean percentage of session time in the tube exceeded chance expectations. This result suggests tube occupation was reinforcing. In Experiment 2's Phase 1, rats could enter an open tube. On exiting, the tube door closed. A lever press opened the door for the rest of the 1-hr session. In Phase 2, these rats were locked in the tube for 10 min before the door opened. Upon exiting, the door closed. As in Phase 1, a lever press opened the door for the rest of the session. The latency between pressing and tube entry decreased over sessions, indicating that tube entry reinforced lever pressing. These results are difficult to reconcile with accounts of rat empathy based on the thesis that tube restraint distresses occupants.

Heroin choice depends on income level and economy type.

RATIONALE: In a previous study, investigating choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative in animals and reductions in income (i.e., choices/day) caused the percentage of income spent on heroin to progressively decrease. In contrast, another study found that humans with opioid use disorder spent the majority of their income on heroin even though they had little income. Comparison of these two studies suggests that the seemingly conflicting results could be explained by differences in the underlying economy types of the choice alternatives. OBJECTIVE: The present experiment tested the hypothesis that the effect of income changes on choice between heroin and a non-drug alternative depends on economy type. METHODS: Rats chose between heroin and saccharin under three income levels. For the Closed group, the choice session was the only opportunity to obtain these reinforcers. For the Heroin Open group and the Saccharin Open group, choice sessions were followed by 3-h periods of unlimited access to heroin or saccharin, respectively. RESULTS: As income decreased, the Closed and Heroin Open groups, but not the Saccharin Open group, spent an increasingly greater percentage of income on saccharin than on heroin. The Saccharin Open group, compared to the other groups, spent a greater percentage of income on heroin as income decreased. CONCLUSIONS: Results confirm that the effects of income and economy type can interact and this may explain the apparently discrepant results of earlier studies. More generally, findings suggest that situations where heroin choice has little consequence for consumption of non-drug alternatives may promote heroin use.

Demand for food and cocaine in Fischer and Lewis rats.

Fischer and Lewis rat strains often serve as animal vulnerability models for drug abuse and addiction. When these strains respond for drugs of abuse, several measures, including total drug intake, response rate and progressive-ratio breakpoints, have been reported to be strain-dependent, a result suggesting genetic differences in drug reactivity and vulnerability. The present study extends these strain comparisons to a previously untested measure--demand analysis. In Experiment 1, four Fischer and four Lewis rats earned their daily food ration by lever pressing under a fixed-ratio schedule, the size of which was increased every three sessions from 3 to 1,000 in logarithmic steps. Consumption was plotted as a function of ratio size, and modeled by the exponential-demand equation (Hursh & Silberberg, 2008). Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 except that different rats were used, and cocaine reinforced lever pressing. A between-experiment comparison showed a commodity-by-strain interaction: Fischer rats defended consumption with greater vigor when cocaine served as the reinforcer than did Lewis rats; for food, this relation was reversed. However, for both strains, defense of consumption of food exceeded that of cocaine.