Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues methods
Aim. Evidence-backed execution summary for Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues methods from Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues.
Show snapshot details
On this page
This experiment, in seven questions
Jump straight to the part of the recipe you need. Data and provenance labels stay close to the action they support.
Shopping and prep list
What do I need before I start?
rat
Subject model for the experiment.
- Use
- confirm full cohort details in the source paper
Introduction
reagent used in the protocol.
- Use
- Operationally, Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties,,,,,,,,,. First, incentive stimuli bias attention towards them and are attractive - individuals approach them. This feature of an incentive stimulus will often bring an individual into close proximity w...
Discussion
reagent used in the protocol.
- Use
- This notion is further supported by reports that the attractiveness of a food cue predicts the extent to which a drug (cocaine) cue acquires incentive motivational properties, based on a number of different measures,,,,. Thus, relative to GTs, STs are more likely to approach a cocaine cue,, they work harder f...
Pretraining
In our earlier studies pretraining consisted of two daily sessions in which rats were placed into the chamber for five minutes, after which time the red house light was illuminated and 50 banana-flavored food pellets were delivered on a Variable Time (VT) 30 s schedule (i.e., one pellet was delivered on average ever...
- Use
- In our earlier studies pretraining consisted of two daily sessions in which rats were placed into the chamber for five minutes, after which time the red house light was illuminated and 50 banana-flavored food pellets were delivered on a Variable Time (VT) 30 s schedule (i.e., one pellet was delivered on average ever...
Pavlovian Conditioning Procedure
On the day following the pretraining session(s), rats underwent five daily sessions of Pavlovian training. One minute after rats were placed into the chamber, illumination of the red house light signaled the beginning of the session, and the house light was left on throughout the entire session. The lever was insert...
- Use
- On the day following the pretraining session(s), rats underwent five daily sessions of Pavlovian training. One minute after rats were placed into the chamber, illumination of the red house light signaled the beginning of the session, and the house light was left on throughout the entire session. The lever was insert...
Conditioned Reinforcement Procedure
Some rats were also subjected to a 40-min test for conditioned reinforcement. The data from these tests have been reported previously,, but are reanalyzed here. On the day after Pavlovian training, as described above, rats were placed into the conditioning chambers, but these were reconfigured. The food magazine w...
- Use
- Some rats were also subjected to a 40-min test for conditioned reinforcement. The data from these tests have been reported previously,, but are reanalyzed here. On the day after Pavlovian training, as described above, rats were placed into the conditioning chambers, but these were reconfigured. The food magazine w...
Before you run
What should be confirmed before execution?
First confirmation
Equipment is listed but no product mappings are linked.
Confirm before execution
This page is backed by a publishable Replication Data Ledger package with zero critical source-verification issues.
Confirm before execution
Open the source paper before finalizing run-specific details.
Procurement checkpoint
Use source-stated vendors where present. Treat mapped products as sourcing options unless the page marks an exact source match.
Open quote workflowStep-by-step procedure
What do I do, in order?
An Index of Pavlovian Conditioned Approach (PCA) Behavior and Calculation of a PCA Score
In our initial studies, using relatively small samples, we classified animals as STs or GTs using a "rank-order split" method - dividing the sample into thirds based on the absolute number of lever-CS deflections after training,,. There are two potential problems with this approach. First, in any small sample the distribution may be skewed towards one phenotype or the other, and simply dividing the sample into thirds may result in misclassifying individuals, and also result in very different performance criteria from one experiment to the next. Second, this way of classifying animals ignores other aspects of conditioned approach, which is a broad term that can be measured in multiple ways. For example, our previous method did not include the degree of interaction with the food-cup (i.e., goal-tracking) when classifying individual rats, even though most animals eng...
Predicting Conditioned Reinforcement with the PCA Index
To further test the effectiveness of the PCA Index method to predict the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to reward cues we determined how well it predicts individual variation in this trait when it is assessed using a different behavioral measure of incentive salience attribution. Robinson and Flagel first reported that a lever-CS serves as a better conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs, and this effect has now been reported in two additional studies,. Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinforcer. For the rank-order split method, STs, INs, and GTs were classed by totaling the number of lever contacts over 5 days of Pavlovian training and dividing the sample of animals tested into thirds, as described previously,. We compared...
Predicting Conditioned Reinforcement with the PCA Index
Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinforcer. For the rank-order split method, rats were classed as STs and GTs by totaling the number of lever contacts over 5 days of Pavlovian training and dividing the sample of animals tested into thirds. Panel A shows the correlation between active nose-pokes (minus inactive nose-pokes) on the test for conditioned reinforcement, as a function of total lever contacts. Panel B shows the same data, but when each animal's PCA Index Score was calculated and used to class animals. In both Panels red filled symbols indicate GTs, white symbols INs, and blue filled symbols STs, classed the two different ways. Horizontal lines depict group means. (Note that the sample sizes differ for the groups between the two methods; an...
Discussion
In a number of previous studies we,,,,,,,, and others have classed rats as STs or GTs based on the number of lever contacts alone, typically dividing relatively small samples of the population into thirds based on the total number of lever contacts over five days of training (the "rank-order split" method). With this procedure it is assumed that the tendency to sign-track is inversely related to the tendency to goal-track. This is partially true: sign-tracking and goal-tracking are indeed inversely correlated ( ), but this is not a perfect correlation (r = -0.58). The rank-order split method would presumably identify rats that did not interact with the lever, but a rat that made 15 lever contacts and 100 CS magazine entries during a session would be ranked the same as a rat who made 15 lever contacts and 0 magazine entries. Making each of the Inde...
Discussion
At first glance, it may seem redundant to include three highly correlated measures for calculation of the PCA Index. Response bias, probability difference, and latency difference are strongly correlated on Day 5 (r's>0.93). For example, rats that contact the lever quickly (short latency) are likely to have a greater response bias for the lever (many overall lever contacts). We included all three measures of approach so that, when PCA is used as a classification process, the PCA index would be less sensitive to random fluctuations in one of the measures. However, when PCA is the endpoint of an experiment, certain experimental manipulations may alter one of these measurements differentially. In this case, the three measure of approach should be examined independently. For example, some rats may engage the lever only briefly, immediately after CS onset, while engaging the food cup for th...
3. The phenotypes are stable and predictive
As we report here, and elsewhere,, performance on one task (e.g., a ST CR) reliably predicts performance on others indicative of the trait, assessed at a different time and using very different procedures ( ). The propensity to approach reward cues not only predicts the ability of a cue to act as conditioned reinforcer, and to reinstate behavior, but also the behavioral responses to very different cues (e.g., a cocaine cue) that have acquired incentive value in an instrumental, rather than a Pavlovian setting,. ST behavior even predicts responses to a fear cue. Also, a ST CR is stable over at least 22 days of testing, and is intact after six weeks without additional PCA training (PJM, unpublished data). There is considerable evidence, therefore, that expression of the traits is not idiosyncratic to one testing situation - it is manifest in many different tests.
Materials and Methods
1,878 adult male Sprague Dawley rats (200-300 g) were purchased from Harlan or Charles River. Rats were handled daily during the week leading up to testing and were given ∼25 banana-flavored pellets (45 mg, BioServ; Frenchtown, NJ) in their home cages (to familiarize them with the pellets) for two days prior to testing. The rats were tested by six different laboratory members from Terry Robinson's laboratory over the course of six years (2004-2010). In addition, the data shown in were collected by Anna Lomanowska and Vedran Lovic at the University of Toronto - Mississauga; these rats were purchased from Charles River. Otherwise, rats were treated identically as described below. Data from previously published studies are included in the analysis reported here,,,,,,,,,,,, as well as data from unpublished studies. Rats were given free access to food an...
Pavlovian Conditioning Procedure
On the day following the pretraining session(s), rats underwent five daily sessions of Pavlovian training. One minute after rats were placed into the chamber, illumination of the red house light signaled the beginning of the session, and the house light was left on throughout the entire session. The lever was inserted into the chamber for 8 s, and during this time the LED located behind the lever was illuminated. After 8 s the lever was retracted, the light extinguished, and a food pellet was immediately delivered into the adjacent food cup. Each training session consisted of twenty-five lever-pellet pairings using a VT-90 s schedule (i.e., presentation of the CS and US varied randomly between 30-150 s, with an average of 90 s). Each session lasted, on average, 37.5 min. Lever presses were recorded when the rats deflected the lever, and food cup entries were recorded as interrup...
Measurement outputs
What raw and processed outputs should exist?
Operationally, Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties,,,,,,,,,. First, incentive stimuli bias attention towards them...
- Raw artifact
- Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
- Processed artifact
- Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
- Reported as
- Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
In our previous studies on individual variation in the expression of sign- vs. goal-tracking behavior, we characterized relatively small numbers of rats in any given experiment,...
- Raw artifact
- Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
- Processed artifact
- Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
- Reported as
- Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
In our initial studies, using relatively small samples, we classified animals as STs or GTs using a "rank-order split" method - dividing the sample into thirds...
- Raw artifact
- Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
- Processed artifact
- Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
- Reported as
- Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinfor...
- Raw artifact
- Per-sample or per-animal endpoint measurements collected during the experiment
- Processed artifact
- Structured table with cleaned measurements ready for comparison
- Reported as
- Summary statistics and between-group or across-timepoint comparisons
Analysis plan
How should the outputs become interpretable results?
Acquisition
Collect raw experimental outputs with enough metadata to preserve sample identity, condition, and timing.
inferred from protocolPreprocessing / cleaning
To further test the effectiveness of the PCA Index method to predict the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to reward cues we determined how well it predicts individual variation in this trait when it is assessed using a different behavioral measure of incen...
from paperScoring or quantification
Quantify the primary readouts for this experiment: Operationally, Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties,,,,,,,,,. First, incentive stimuli bias attention towards them...; In our previous studies on individual variation in the expression of sign- vs. goal-tracking behavior, we characterized relatively small numbers of rats in any given experiment,...; In our initial studies, using relatively small samples, we classified animals as STs or GTs using a "rank-order split" method - dividing the sample into thirds...; Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinfor....
from paperStatistical comparison
To further test the effectiveness of the PCA Index method to predict the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to reward cues we determined how well it predicts...
from paperReporting output
Report representative outputs alongside summary comparisons for Operationally, Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties,,,,,,,,,. First, incentive stimuli bias attention towards them..., In our previous studies on individual variation in the expression of sign- vs. goal-tracking behavior, we characterized relatively small numbers of rats in any given experiment,..., In our initial studies, using relatively small samples, we classified animals as STs or GTs using a "rank-order split" method - dividing the sample into thirds..., Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinfor....
inferred from protocolStructured statistical methods
To further test the effectiveness of the PCA Index method to predict the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to reward cues we determined how well it predicts...
source structuredSource and audit
What supports the facts on this page?
Evidence quotes (8)
In our initial studies, using relatively small samples, we classified animals as STs or GTs using a "rank-order split" method - dividing the sample into thirds based on the absolute number of lever-CS deflections after training,,. There are two potential problems with this approach. First, in any small sample the distribution may be skewed towards one phenotype or the other, and simply dividing the sample into thirds may result in misclassifying individuals, and also result in very different performance criteria from one experiment to the next. Second, this way of classifying animals ignores other aspects of conditioned approach, which is a broad term that can be measured in multiple ways. For example, our previous method did not include the degree of interaction with the food-cup (i.e., goal-tracking) when classifying individual rats, even though most animals engage in both sign- and goal-tracking to some extent. Furthermore, some rats may approach the cue or food cup quickly, but not necessarily engage it vigorously, or may respond only on a portion of trials. Because these three aspects of approach may be expressed to different degrees in individual anima...
To further test the effectiveness of the PCA Index method to predict the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to reward cues we determined how well it predicts individual variation in this trait when it is assessed using a different behavioral measure of incentive salience attribution. Robinson and Flagel first reported that a lever-CS serves as a better conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs, and this effect has now been reported in two additional studies,. Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinforcer. For the rank-order split method, STs, INs, and GTs were classed by totaling the number of lever contacts over 5 days of Pavlovian training and dividing the sample of animals tested into thirds, as described previously,. We compared this method with the PCA Index described here (, ). shows that the correlation between conditioned approach and conditioned reinforcement obtained using the rank-order split method (; r = 0.53; p<0.01) was not quite as strong as when the PCA Index Scores were used (; r =...
Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinforcer. For the rank-order split method, rats were classed as STs and GTs by totaling the number of lever contacts over 5 days of Pavlovian training and dividing the sample of animals tested into thirds. Panel A shows the correlation between active nose-pokes (minus inactive nose-pokes) on the test for conditioned reinforcement, as a function of total lever contacts. Panel B shows the same data, but when each animal's PCA Index Score was calculated and used to class animals. In both Panels red filled symbols indicate GTs, white symbols INs, and blue filled symbols STs, classed the two different ways. Horizontal lines depict group means. (Note that the sample sizes differ for the groups between the two methods; an equal number of STs and GTs cannot be assumed when using the PCA Index.).
In a number of previous studies we,,,,,,,, and others have classed rats as STs or GTs based on the number of lever contacts alone, typically dividing relatively small samples of the population into thirds based on the total number of lever contacts over five days of training (the "rank-order split" method). With this procedure it is assumed that the tendency to sign-track is inversely related to the tendency to goal-track. This is partially true: sign-tracking and goal-tracking are indeed inversely correlated ( ), but this is not a perfect correlation (r = -0.58). The rank-order split method would presumably identify rats that did not interact with the lever, but a rat that made 15 lever contacts and 100 CS magazine entries during a session would be ranked the same as a rat who made 15 lever contacts and 0 magazine entries. Making each of the Index components a subtraction score, in which each measure of goal-tracking is subtracted from the related measure of sign-tracking, solves this problem and places equal emphasis on sign- and goal-tracking.
At first glance, it may seem redundant to include three highly correlated measures for calculation of the PCA Index. Response bias, probability difference, and latency difference are strongly correlated on Day 5 (r's>0.93). For example, rats that contact the lever quickly (short latency) are likely to have a greater response bias for the lever (many overall lever contacts). We included all three measures of approach so that, when PCA is used as a classification process, the PCA index would be less sensitive to random fluctuations in one of the measures. However, when PCA is the endpoint of an experiment, certain experimental manipulations may alter one of these measurements differentially. In this case, the three measure of approach should be examined independently. For example, some rats may engage the lever only briefly, immediately after CS onset, while engaging the food cup for the remainder of the CS period. In this manner, response bias would be more sensitive to the goal-tracking aspect of the behavior, and would thus be dissociated from latency to food cup entry and probability. An experimental treatment that resulted in an increase in vacillation between sign- and goal-...
As we report here, and elsewhere,, performance on one task (e.g., a ST CR) reliably predicts performance on others indicative of the trait, assessed at a different time and using very different procedures ( ). The propensity to approach reward cues not only predicts the ability of a cue to act as conditioned reinforcer, and to reinstate behavior, but also the behavioral responses to very different cues (e.g., a cocaine cue) that have acquired incentive value in an instrumental, rather than a Pavlovian setting,. ST behavior even predicts responses to a fear cue. Also, a ST CR is stable over at least 22 days of testing, and is intact after six weeks without additional PCA training (PJM, unpublished data). There is considerable evidence, therefore, that expression of the traits is not idiosyncratic to one testing situation - it is manifest in many different tests.
1,878 adult male Sprague Dawley rats (200-300 g) were purchased from Harlan or Charles River. Rats were handled daily during the week leading up to testing and were given ∼25 banana-flavored pellets (45 mg, BioServ; Frenchtown, NJ) in their home cages (to familiarize them with the pellets) for two days prior to testing. The rats were tested by six different laboratory members from Terry Robinson's laboratory over the course of six years (2004-2010). In addition, the data shown in were collected by Anna Lomanowska and Vedran Lovic at the University of Toronto - Mississauga; these rats were purchased from Charles River. Otherwise, rats were treated identically as described below. Data from previously published studies are included in the analysis reported here,,,,,,,,,,,, as well as data from unpublished studies. Rats were given free access to food and water when not in the conditioning chambers (i.e., they were not food restricted). All experiments followed the principles of laboratory animals care specified by "Guidelines for the Care and Use of Mammals in Neuroscience and Behavioral Research" National Research Council (2003), and...
On the day following the pretraining session(s), rats underwent five daily sessions of Pavlovian training. One minute after rats were placed into the chamber, illumination of the red house light signaled the beginning of the session, and the house light was left on throughout the entire session. The lever was inserted into the chamber for 8 s, and during this time the LED located behind the lever was illuminated. After 8 s the lever was retracted, the light extinguished, and a food pellet was immediately delivered into the adjacent food cup. Each training session consisted of twenty-five lever-pellet pairings using a VT-90 s schedule (i.e., presentation of the CS and US varied randomly between 30-150 s, with an average of 90 s). Each session lasted, on average, 37.5 min. Lever presses were recorded when the rats deflected the lever, and food cup entries were recorded as interruption of a photobeam across the entrance to the food cup. Note that pellet delivery occurred independent of the animal's behavior. Rats were returned to their home cages at the end of the session.
Machine-readable layer
[
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "HowTo",
"name": "Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues methods",
"description": "Evidence-backed execution summary for Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues methods from Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues.",
"totalTime": "PT15365M",
"step": [
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 1,
"name": "An Index of Pavlovian Conditioned Approach (PCA) Behavior and Calculation of a PCA Score",
"text": "In our initial studies, using relatively small samples, we classified animals as STs or GTs using a \"rank-order split\" method - dividing the sample into thirds based on the absolute number of lever-CS deflections after training,,. There are two potential problems with this approach. First, in any small sample the distribution may be skewed towards one phenotype or the other, and simply dividing the sample into thirds may result in misclassifying individuals, and also result in very different performance criteria from one experiment to the next. Second, this way of classifying animals ignores other aspects of conditioned approach, which is a broad term that can be measured in multiple ways. For example, our previous method did not include the degree of interaction with the food-cup (i.e., goal-tracking) when classifying individual rats, even though most animals eng..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 2,
"name": "Predicting Conditioned Reinforcement with the PCA Index",
"text": "To further test the effectiveness of the PCA Index method to predict the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to reward cues we determined how well it predicts individual variation in this trait when it is assessed using a different behavioral measure of incentive salience attribution. Robinson and Flagel first reported that a lever-CS serves as a better conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs, and this effect has now been reported in two additional studies,. Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinforcer. For the rank-order split method, STs, INs, and GTs were classed by totaling the number of lever contacts over 5 days of Pavlovian training and dividing the sample of animals tested into thirds, as described previously,. We compared..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 3,
"name": "Predicting Conditioned Reinforcement with the PCA Index",
"text": "Data from Lomanowska et al. were used to compare the effectiveness of the rank-order split and PCA Index methods to predict the ability of the CS to act as a conditioned reinforcer. For the rank-order split method, rats were classed as STs and GTs by totaling the number of lever contacts over 5 days of Pavlovian training and dividing the sample of animals tested into thirds. Panel A shows the correlation between active nose-pokes (minus inactive nose-pokes) on the test for conditioned reinforcement, as a function of total lever contacts. Panel B shows the same data, but when each animal's PCA Index Score was calculated and used to class animals. In both Panels red filled symbols indicate GTs, white symbols INs, and blue filled symbols STs, classed the two different ways. Horizontal lines depict group means. (Note that the sample sizes differ for the groups between the two methods; an..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 4,
"name": "Discussion",
"text": "In a number of previous studies we,,,,,,,, and others have classed rats as STs or GTs based on the number of lever contacts alone, typically dividing relatively small samples of the population into thirds based on the total number of lever contacts over five days of training (the \"rank-order split\" method). With this procedure it is assumed that the tendency to sign-track is inversely related to the tendency to goal-track. This is partially true: sign-tracking and goal-tracking are indeed inversely correlated ( ), but this is not a perfect correlation (r = -0.58). The rank-order split method would presumably identify rats that did not interact with the lever, but a rat that made 15 lever contacts and 100 CS magazine entries during a session would be ranked the same as a rat who made 15 lever contacts and 0 magazine entries. Making each of the Inde..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 5,
"name": "Discussion",
"text": "At first glance, it may seem redundant to include three highly correlated measures for calculation of the PCA Index. Response bias, probability difference, and latency difference are strongly correlated on Day 5 (r's>0.93). For example, rats that contact the lever quickly (short latency) are likely to have a greater response bias for the lever (many overall lever contacts). We included all three measures of approach so that, when PCA is used as a classification process, the PCA index would be less sensitive to random fluctuations in one of the measures. However, when PCA is the endpoint of an experiment, certain experimental manipulations may alter one of these measurements differentially. In this case, the three measure of approach should be examined independently. For example, some rats may engage the lever only briefly, immediately after CS onset, while engaging the food cup for th..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 6,
"name": "3. The phenotypes are stable and predictive",
"text": "As we report here, and elsewhere,, performance on one task (e.g., a ST CR) reliably predicts performance on others indicative of the trait, assessed at a different time and using very different procedures ( ). The propensity to approach reward cues not only predicts the ability of a cue to act as conditioned reinforcer, and to reinstate behavior, but also the behavioral responses to very different cues (e.g., a cocaine cue) that have acquired incentive value in an instrumental, rather than a Pavlovian setting,. ST behavior even predicts responses to a fear cue. Also, a ST CR is stable over at least 22 days of testing, and is intact after six weeks without additional PCA training (PJM, unpublished data). There is considerable evidence, therefore, that expression of the traits is not idiosyncratic to one testing situation - it is manifest in many different tests."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 7,
"name": "Materials and Methods",
"text": "1,878 adult male Sprague Dawley rats (200-300 g) were purchased from Harlan or Charles River. Rats were handled daily during the week leading up to testing and were given ∼25 banana-flavored pellets (45 mg, BioServ; Frenchtown, NJ) in their home cages (to familiarize them with the pellets) for two days prior to testing. The rats were tested by six different laboratory members from Terry Robinson's laboratory over the course of six years (2004-2010). In addition, the data shown in were collected by Anna Lomanowska and Vedran Lovic at the University of Toronto - Mississauga; these rats were purchased from Charles River. Otherwise, rats were treated identically as described below. Data from previously published studies are included in the analysis reported here,,,,,,,,,,,, as well as data from unpublished studies. Rats were given free access to food an..."
},
{
"@type": "HowToStep",
"position": 8,
"name": "Pavlovian Conditioning Procedure",
"text": "On the day following the pretraining session(s), rats underwent five daily sessions of Pavlovian training. One minute after rats were placed into the chamber, illumination of the red house light signaled the beginning of the session, and the house light was left on throughout the entire session. The lever was inserted into the chamber for 8 s, and during this time the LED located behind the lever was illuminated. After 8 s the lever was retracted, the light extinguished, and a food pellet was immediately delivered into the adjacent food cup. Each training session consisted of twenty-five lever-pellet pairings using a VT-90 s schedule (i.e., presentation of the CS and US varied randomly between 30-150 s, with an average of 90 s). Each session lasted, on average, 37.5 min. Lever presses were recorded when the rats deflected the lever, and food cup entries were recorded as interrup..."
}
],
"tool": [
{
"@type": "HowToTool",
"name": "Pretraining"
},
{
"@type": "HowToTool",
"name": "Pavlovian Conditioning Procedure"
},
{
"@type": "HowToTool",
"name": "Conditioned Reinforcement Procedure"
}
],
"supply": [
{
"@type": "HowToSupply",
"name": "Introduction"
},
{
"@type": "HowToSupply",
"name": "Discussion"
}
],
"isBasedOn": {
"@type": "ScholarlyArticle",
"headline": "Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues",
"datePublished": "2012",
"author": [
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Paul J. Meyer"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Vedran Lovic"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Benjamin T. Saunders"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Lindsay M. Yager"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Shelly B. Flagel"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Jonathan D. Morrow"
},
{
"@type": "Person",
"name": "Terry E. Robinson"
}
],
"identifier": "10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p"
}
},
{
"@context": "https://schema.org",
"@type": "BreadcrumbList",
"itemListElement": [
{
"@type": "ListItem",
"position": 1,
"name": "Experiments",
"item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments"
},
{
"@type": "ListItem",
"position": 2,
"name": "Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues methods",
"item": "https://replicatescience.com/experiments/quantifying-individual-variation-in-the-propensity-to-attribute-incentive-salience-to-reward-cues-methods-paul-j-meyer-pmc3382216/quantifying-individual-variation-in-the-propensity-to-attribute-incentive-salience-to-reward-cues-mlph2vyg"
}
]
}
]