4.2 Article Proceedings Paper

ISOLATING BEHAVIORAL MECHANISMS OF INTERTEMPORAL CHOICE: NICOTINE EFFECTS ON DELAY DISCOUNTING AND AMOUNT SENSITIVITY

Journal

JOURNAL OF THE EXPERIMENTAL ANALYSIS OF BEHAVIOR
Volume 91, Issue 2, Pages 213-223

Publisher

SOC EXP ANALYSIS BEHAVIOR INC
DOI: 10.1901/jeab.2009.91-213

Keywords

risk; impulsive choice; reinforer delay; reinforcer amount; nicotine; lever press; rats

Funding

  1. NIDA NIH HHS [F31 DA021442] Funding Source: Medline

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Many drugs of abuse produce changes in impulsive choice, that is, choice for a smaller-sooner reinforcer over a larger-later reinforcer. Because the alternatives differ in both delay and amount, it is not clear whether these drug effects are due to the differences in reinforcer delay or amount.. To isolate the effects of delay, we used a titrating delay procedure. In phase 1, 9 rats made discrete choices between variable delays (1 or 19 s, equal probability of each) and a delay to a single food pellet. The computer titrated the delay to a single food pellet until the rats were indifferent between the two options. This indifference delay was used as the starting value for the titrating delay for all future sessions. We next evaluated the acute effects, of nicotine (subcutaneous 1.0, 0.3, 0.1, and 0.03 mg/kg) oil choice. If nicotine increases delay discounting, it should have increased preference for the variable delay. Instead, nicotine had very little effect on choice. In a second phase, the titrated delay alternative produced three food pellets instead of one, which was again produced by the variable delay (1 s or 19 s) alternative. Under this procedure, nicotine increased preference for the one pellet alternative. Nicotine-induced changes in impulsive choice are therefore likely due to differences in reinforcer amount rather than differences in reinforcer delay. In addition, it may be necessary to include an amount sensitivity parameter in any mathematical model of choice when the alternatives differ in reinforcer amount.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available