ArticlePsychopharmacology2025
Triggered temptations: A new procedure to compare reward-seeking behaviour induced by discriminative and conditioned stimuli in rats.
Article in Psychopharmacology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Activating group II metabotropic glutamate receptors in the basolateral amygdala inhibits increases in reward seeking triggered by discriminative stimuli in rats.The international journal of neuropsychopharmacology · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
rationaleEnvironmental cues guide animals towards resources vital for survival but can also drive maladaptive reward-seeking behaviours, as in gambling and eating disorders. While conditioned stimuli (CSs) are paired with reward delivery after reward-seeking actions, discriminative stimuli (DSs) signal reward availability independently of behaviour.
objectiveWe introduce a procedure to compare CS and DS effects on reward-seeking behaviour, in the same subjects within a single session.
methodsFemale and male Sprague-Dawley rats learned to self-administer sucrose. During each session, DS+ trials signaled that lever pressing would produce sucrose paired with a CS+ , and DS- trials signaled no sucrose and a CS-. Next, in the absence of sucrose, we assessed the ability of the cues to i) reinforce lever pressing and ii) increase sucrose seeking when presented response-independently. We also assessed the effects of the mGlu
resultsBy the end of self-administration training, lever pressing peaked during DS+ trials and dropped during DS- trials. The DS+ was a conditioned reinforcer of sucrose seeking in both sexes, whereas the CS+ was more effective in males. Response-independent presentations of the DS+ invigorated sucrose seeking in both sexes, whereas the CS+ was effective only in males. LY379268 suppressed DS+ -triggered sucrose seeking in females, with no effect in males. D-amphetamine enhanced sucrose seeking non-specifically across cue conditions in males, with no effect in females.
conclusionsOur new trial-based procedure can be used to identify unique and similar mechanisms underlying DS and CS influences on appetitive behaviour.
Indexed as
Identifiers
39994055What 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.