ArticleBehavioural processes2024
A test of the role of stimulus-response and stimulus-outcome associations in the effects of intermittent-access training.
Article in Behavioural processes, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed, 0 citations in OpenAlex.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Increased reinforcer motivation in rats has been repeatedly demonstrated following intermittent-access (IntA) training, where the reinforcer is only available for brief periods during a session, compared to continuous-access (ContA) training where the reinforcer is available throughout the session. The present study investigated whether different associations learned during training on the two procedures contributes to the effect. Two experiments tested the importance of the stimulus-response (S-R) and stimulus-outcome (S-O) associations between the IntA availability cues and the training response and reinforcer, respectively. In Exp. 1, separate groups of rats were trained to lever press for saccharin on the IntA or ContA procedures. Increased motivation for saccharin was observed in the IntA group on a later progressive ratio test where nosepoking was the operant (but not when lever pressing was the operant). The outcome of the nosepoke test suggests that a potential S-R association formed during IntA training was not critical for the effect. In Exp. 2, increased saccharin motivation (on nosepoke tests) after IntA training (with lever pressing) was observed regardless of the presence or absence of IntA availability cues, indicating that the S-O association formed during training is not critical for the effect either. Overall, these results suggest that the elemental associations learned on IntA procedures may not be what drives increased motivation observed after IntA training.
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.