ReviewAppetite2018
Progressive ratio (PR) schedules and the sipometer: Do they measure wanting, liking, and/or reward? A tribute to Anthony Sclafani and Karen Ackroff.
Review in Appetite, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed, 13 citations in OpenAlex.
- Responsiveness and Reliability of a Sipping Device to Measure Motivation in Normal-Weight Individuals and Bariatric Surgery Patients.Nutrients · 2024Article
- Positive correlation between measures of habitual responding and motivated responding in mice.Journal of the experimental analysis of behavior · 2024Article
- Decreased consumption of natural rewards in rhesus monkeys with prolonged methamphetamine abstinence.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2024Article
- Neuropeptides Modulate Feeding via the Dopamine Reward Pathway.Neurochemical research · 2023Review
- Activity of a direct VTA to ventral pallidum GABA pathway encodes unconditioned reward value and sustains motivation for reward.Science advances · 2022Article
- Intact vagal gut-brain signalling prevents hyperphagia and excessive weight gain in response to high-fat high-sugar diet.Acta physiologica (Oxford, England) · 2021Article
- Making Sense of Rodent Models of Anhedonia.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2018Review
- From appetite setpoint to appetition: 50years of ingestive behavior research.Physiology & behavior · 2018Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
This paper honors the contributions made by Anthony (Tony) Sclafani and Karen Ackroff to both the Columbia University Seminar on Appetitive Behavior and to the field of ingestive behavior in general. We review their use of the progressive ratio (PR) licking paradigm, to determine whether the taste of sucrose, independent of its post-ingestive effects, is always positively reinforcing in animals. They demonstrated a monotonic increase in licking as concentration increased, and obtained results identical to those obtained with a lever-pressing paradigm, but licking was easier and more natural than lever pressing. The PR paradigm was translated to evaluate liquid food reward value in humans. An instrument (the sipometer) was devised that initially permitted a few seconds access to small amounts of a sweet beverage as the participants increased the time to obtain it in 3-5-sec increments. The device went through two refinements and currently delivers the reinforcer and measures the pressure exerted to obtain it. The sipometer is compared with other techniques for measuring motivation and reward. The use of the sipometer and the PR method are discussed in relation to the theoretical challenges inherent in measuring motivation and pleasure, from both psychological and behavioral economics perspectives, and why it is or is not important to separate these processes for both theoretical and practical applications.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.