首页> 美国卫生研究院文献>other >Measurement of impulsive choice in rats: Same and alternate form test-retest reliability and temporal tracking
【2h】

Measurement of impulsive choice in rats: Same and alternate form test-retest reliability and temporal tracking

机译:大鼠冲动选择的测量:相同和替代形式的重测信度和时间跟踪

代理获取
本网站仅为用户提供外文OA文献查询和代理获取服务,本网站没有原文。下单后我们将采用程序或人工为您竭诚获取高质量的原文,但由于OA文献来源多样且变更频繁,仍可能出现获取不到、文献不完整或与标题不符等情况,如果获取不到我们将提供退款服务。请知悉。

摘要

Impulsive choice is typically measured by presenting smaller-sooner (SS) versus larger-later (LL) rewards, with biases towards the SS indicating impulsivity. The current study tested rats on different impulsive choice procedures with LL delay manipulations to assess same-form and alternate-form test-retest reliability. In the systematic-GE procedure (), the LL delay increased after several sessions of training; in the systematic-ER procedure (), the delay increased within each session; and in the adjusting-M procedure (), the delay changed after each block of trials within a session based on each rat’s choices in the previous block. In addition to measuring choice behavior, we also assessed temporal tracking of the LL delays using the median times of responding during LL trials. The two systematic procedures yielded similar results in both choice and temporal tracking measures following extensive training, whereas the adjusting procedure resulted in relatively more impulsive choices and poorer temporal tracking. Overall, the three procedures produced acceptable same form test-retest reliability over time, but the adjusting procedure did not show significant alternate form test-retest reliability with the other two procedures. The results suggest that systematic procedures may supply better measurements of impulsive choice in rats.
机译:冲动选择通常通过呈现较小的较早奖赏(SS)与较大的较晚奖赏(LL)来衡量,对SS的偏向表示冲动。当前的研究使用LL延迟操作对大鼠进行了不同的冲动选择程序测试,以评估同种形式和替代形式的测试-再测可靠性。在系统GE程序()中,经过几次训练后LL延迟增加;在系统的ER程序()中,每次会话中的延迟都增加了;并且在Adjusting-M程序()中,在会话中的每个试验块之后,延迟都会根据前一个试验块中每只大鼠的选择而改变。除了测量选择行为外,我们还使用LL试验期间响应的中位数评估了LL延迟的时间跟踪。经过广泛的训练,这两种系统的程序在选择和时间追踪方面都产生了相似的结果,而调整程序导致相对冲动的选择和较差的时间追踪。总体而言,这三个过程随着时间的推移产生了可接受的相同的形式重测信度,但是调整过程并未显示出与其他两个过程相比具有显着的替代形式的重测信度。结果表明系统的程序可能提供更好的测量大鼠冲动选择。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
代理获取

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号