4.6 Article

Gender differences in delay-discounting under mild food restriction

期刊

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
卷 200, 期 1, 页码 134-143

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2009.01.006

关键词

Delay-discounting paradigm; Gender differences; Food deprivation level; Home-cage activity; Novelty seeking; Mice

资金

  1. bilateral Italy-USA Program
  2. ERARE-EuroRETT Network
  3. Sigma-Tau SpA, Pomezia, Italy
  4. European Mind & Metabolism Association (EMMA)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Impulsivity, a core symptom of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), is tested in animal models by delay-discounting tasks. So far, mainly male subjects have been used in this paradigm at severe levels of food restriction. Here we studied the impulsive behaviour of CD-I adult male and female mice at mild levels of food restriction. Mice maintained at 90 +/- 5% of ad libitum bodyweight, were tested in operant chambers provided with nose-poking holes. Nose poking in one hole resulted in the immediate delivery of one food pellet (small-soon, SS), whereas nose poking in the other hole delivered five food pellets after a delay (large-late, LL), which was increased progressively each day (0-150 s). Two subgroups emerged: individuals that shifted at short delays (steep) and individuals that did not shift, even at the highest delays (flat). Analysis showed that steep females shifted at shorter delays than steep males, while no difference existed between males and females within the flat sub-population. In home-cage circadian activity as well as in a novelty-seeking test, females were more active than males. It can be concluded from these results that female mice are more impulsive than male mice under mild food restriction. This is in contrast with findings in earlier studies with more severe food restriction. Therefore, an alternative explanation is that females are more explorative, and that different features might be tested in delay-discounting paradigms, depending on restriction levels. (C) 2009 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据