4.7 Article

Balancing Risk and Reward: A Rat Model of Risky Decision Making

期刊

NEUROPSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 34, 期 10, 页码 2208-2217

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/npp.2009.48

关键词

risk; decision making; choice; punishment; amphetamine; cocaine

资金

  1. Department of Psychology at Texas A M University
  2. NIH [DA018764, NIH AG029421, NIH DA023331]
  3. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON AGING [R01AG029421, T32AG027668] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER
  4. NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE [R03DA018764, F31DA023331] Funding Source: NIH RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We developed a behavioral task in rats to assess the influence of risk of punishment on decision making. Male Long-Evans rats were given choices between pressing a lever to obtain a small, 'safe' food reward and a large food reward associated with risk of punishment (footshock). Each test session consisted of 5 blocks of 10 choice trials, with punishment risk increasing with each consecutive block (0, 25, 50, 75, 100%). Preference for the large, 'risky' reward declined with both increased probability and increased magnitude of punishment, and reward choice was not affected by the level of satiation or the order of risk presentation. Performance in this risky decision-making task was correlated with the degree to which the rats discounted the value of probabilistic rewards, but not delayed rewards. Finally, the acute effects of different doses of amphetamine and cocaine on risky decision making were assessed. Systemic amphetamine administration caused a dose-dependent decrease in choice of the large risky reward (ie, it made rats more risk averse). Cocaine did not cause a shift in reward choice, but instead impaired the rats' sensitivity to changes in punishment risk. These results should prove useful for investigating neuropsychiatric disorders in which risk taking is a prominent feature, such as attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder and addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology (2009) 34, 2208-2217; doi: 10.1038/npp.2009.48; published online 13 May 2009

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

4.7
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