ABSTRACT
String-pulling is a widely used paradigm in animal cognition research to assess what animals understand about the functionality of strings as a means to obtain an out-of-reach reward. This study aimed to systematically investigate what rules Western scrub-jays (Aphelocoma californica) use to solve different patterned string tasks, i.e. tasks in which subjects have to choose between two or more strings of which only one is connected to the reward, or where one is more efficient. Arranging strings in a parallel configuration showed that the jays were generally capable of solving multiple-string tasks and acted in a goal-directed manner. The slanted and crossed configurations revealed a reliance on a "proximity rule", that is, a tendency to choose the string-end closest to the reward. When confronted with strings of different lengths attached to rewards at different distances the birds chose according to the reward distance, preferring the reward closest to them, and were sensitive to the movement of the reward, but did not consistently prefer the shorter and therefore more efficient string. Generally, the scrub-jays were successful in tasks where the reward was closest to the string-ends they needed to pull or when string length and reward distance correlated, but the birds had problems when the wrong string-end was closest to the reward or when the food items were in close proximity to each other. These results show that scrub-jays had a partial understanding of the physical principles underlying string-pulling but relied on simpler strategies such as the proximity rule to solve the tasks.
Subject(s)
Passeriformes , Problem Solving , Reward , Animals , CognitionABSTRACT
The opioid system is implicated in the hedonic and motivational processing of food, and in binge eating, a behaviour strongly linked to obesity. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effects of 4 weeks of treatment with the mu-opioid receptor antagonist GSK1521498 on eating behaviour in binge-eating obese subjects. Adults with body mass index ≥ 30 kg m(-2) and binge eating scale scores ≥ 19 received 1-week single-blind placebo run-in, and were then randomized to 28 days with either 2 mg day(-1) GSK1521498, 5 mg day(-1) GSK1521498 or placebo (N=21 per arm) in a double-blind parallel group design. The outcome measures were body weight, fat mass, hedonic and consummatory eating behaviour during inpatient food challenges, safety and pharmacokinetics. The primary analysis was the comparison of change scores in the higher-dose treatment group versus placebo using analysis of covariance at each relevant time point. GSK1521498 (2 mg and 5 mg) was not different from placebo in its effects on weight, fat mass and binge eating scores. However, compared with placebo, GSK1521498 5 mg day(-1) caused a significant reduction in hedonic responses to sweetened dairy products and reduced calorific intake, particularly of high-fat foods during ad libitum buffet meals, with some of these effects correlating with systemic exposure of GSK1521498. There were no significant effects of GSK1521498 2 mg day(-1) on eating behaviour, indicating dose dependency of pharmacodynamics. GSK1521498 was generally well tolerated and no previously unidentified safety signals were detected. The potential for these findings to translate into clinically significant effects in the context of binge eating and weight regain prevention requires further investigation.
