ライフサイエンスコーパス: devaluation

1 in object choices in response to reinforcer devaluation.

2 , cocaine seeking was insensitive to outcome devaluation.

3 ediators of adaptive responses to reinforcer devaluation.

4 s in their activity as a function of outcome devaluation.

5 cient to impair the expression of reinforcer devaluation.

6 me values to guide behavior after reinforcer devaluation.

7 the progressive hold-down task, and outcome devaluation.

8 ptibility of oral cocaine seeking to outcome devaluation.

9 sensitivity of that responding to reinforcer devaluation.

10 detectable effect on sensitivity to outcome devaluation.

11 ircuitry mediating the effects of reinforcer devaluation.

12 ons that coactivate with shame-fail to track devaluation.

13 better the rats suppressed responding after devaluation.

14 demonstrating evidence of outcome-selective devaluation.

15 ion of the IC and NAc core disrupted outcome devaluation.

16 lateral NAc core abolished outcome-selective devaluation.

17 ertraining, which were identified using goal-devaluation.

18 emonstrated a lack of sensitivity to outcome devaluation.

19 e P3b, from 550-700 ms) sensitive to outcome devaluation.

20 ly in the IC before test abolished selective devaluation.

21 lished outcome devaluation when given before devaluation.

22 ior training to direct performance following devaluation.

23 ained goal-directed and sensitive to outcome devaluation.

24 , and given overtraining followed by outcome devaluation.

25 a habit-based system no longer sensitive to devaluation.

26 d controls for their responses to reinforcer devaluation, a task that assesses the monkeys' abilities

27 contrast, responding that is insensitive to devaluation after 8 weeks of training becomes sensitive

28 ns of the BLA will interfere with reinforcer devaluation after appetitive Pavlovian or instrumental c

29 ter 8 weeks of training becomes sensitive to devaluation after inactivation of the DLS but is unaffec

30 ed sham lesioned rats insensitive to outcome devaluation, an effect that was also found in rats given

31 The subsequent outcome devaluation and 'slip-of-action' tests allowed evaluatio

32 rat BLA to specific components of reinforcer devaluation and are the first to show impairment in rein

33 outcome, before their sensitivity to outcome devaluation and degradation of the instrumental continge

34 be reinforced, though sensitivity to outcome devaluation and extinction were intact.

35 varies with levels of performance on reward devaluation and object reversal tasks, volumes of areas

36 ion and outcome, as well as sensory-specific devaluation and omission tests, demonstrate that these l

37 e relationship between the outcome-selective devaluation and reinstatement effects and found evidence

38 directed, being highly sensitive to outcome devaluation and reversal of the action-outcome contingen

39 Ar activation unilaterally in the BLA before devaluation and then contralaterally in the IC before te

40 rumental behavior insensitive to the outcome devaluation (and thus habitual), whereas hydrocortisone

41 s decreased after acquisition for one group (devaluation) and held constant for another group (contro

42 f specific rewards in the OFC are updated by devaluation, and how functional connections to vmPFC ref

43 extinction, contingency degradation, outcome devaluation, and Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (n =

44 satiety, Pavlovian conditioning, reinforcer devaluation, and simultaneous visual discrimination.

45 Tests of specific satiety induced outcome devaluation, and tests of PIT revealed that, although th

46 posterior OFC were modulated after selective devaluation, and that connectivity between this region a

47 ion in the others, suggesting that shame and devaluation are informed by a common species-wide logic

48 d the effects of sensory-specific reinforcer devaluation as a way to probe each monkey's use of goal-

49 nitial training using sensitivity to outcome devaluation as an assay of goal-directed performance.

50 arning, delayed alternation, extinction, and devaluation as well as more recent findings showing the

51 eting activity pattern insensitive to reward devaluation but sensitive to running automaticity.

52 the OFC did not affect instrumental outcome devaluation, but abolished the transfer effect.

53 in training is goal-directed and reduced by devaluation, but after 8 weeks of daily operant training

54 Critically, reward devaluation by both cognitive and physical effort was su

55 ter pavlovian light-food pairings but before devaluation by food-toxin pairings, Ostlund and Balleine

56 ar reductions of licking responses following devaluation by satiety in both early and late sessions.

57 Sensitivity to devaluation by specific satiety was then assessed.

58 In the win-shift task, devaluation caused rats to reject the reinforcer, yet th

59 rned and control behavior, and otherwise the devaluation circuit does not require MD.

60 rther suggest that MD is a necessary part of devaluation circuits only in cases in which previous ass

61 After conditioning, rats in a devaluation condition were given access to sucrose in th

62 regions on instrumental performance, outcome devaluation, degradation of the instrumental contingency

63 Devaluation did not affect latency in overtrained rats b

64 The stigma measure used was the Perceived Devaluation-Discrimination Scale.

65 t BLA is critical for conditioned reinforcer devaluation during the period when the primary reinforce

66 ore-lesioned rats failed to show a selective devaluation effect and reduced responding on both levers

67 n (i.e., MUS infused before satiation), this devaluation effect was blocked.

68 The devaluation effect was not explained by differences in t

69 s that represented the nonsated food reward (devaluation effect).

70 in the ipsilateral group showed a selective devaluation effect, again based on the most recently int

71 tivation of OFC is sufficient to disrupt the devaluation effect, and to document a role for OFC disti

72 ith obtaining the devalued food, called the "devaluation effect," a hallmark of goal-directed behavio

73 BLA lesions impaired this devaluation effect.

74 or agonist muscimol into area 13 blocked the devaluation effect: the monkeys did not reduce their sel

75 lesions of the amygdala attenuate reinforcer devaluation effects in monkeys and rats.

76 owed a significant attenuation of reinforcer devaluation effects on each of two separate assessments,

77 h the amygdala and PFo to mediate reinforcer devaluation effects.

78 c amygdala damage interfered with reinforcer devaluation effects.

79 the amygdala exhibited significantly reduced devaluation effects.

80 ate their choice preference following reward devaluation, either when the devalued reward was still d

81 aking choices where the prospective costs of devaluation exceed the benefits, (ii) preventing negativ

82 e the first to show impairment in reinforcer devaluation following transient inactivation in the rat.

83 for lower efforts, and progressively larger devaluations for higher effort-levels (concave shape).

84 rd in a manner opposite to delay, with small devaluations for lower efforts, and progressively larger

85 ibited similar levels of UCS expectancy, the devaluation group had significantly smaller conditional

86 In the test for devaluation, however, OFC rats exhibited no change in co

87 MD lesions caused no devaluation impairment in a multiple-reinforcer Pavlovia

88 imental effects of BLA lesions on reinforcer devaluation in a Pavlovian autoshaping procedure, but no

89 with the degree of insensitivity to outcome devaluation in subsequent performance.

90 eover, shame in each country strongly tracks devaluation in the others, suggesting that shame and dev

91 redicted, shame closely tracks the threat of devaluation in the United States (r = .69), India (r = .

92 Amygdala ablation disrupts reinforcer "devaluation" in monkeys.

93 ated the selective satiation-induced change (devaluation) in object preference in probe sessions.

94 ual stimuli, both before and after olfactory devaluation, in a paradigm of appetitive conditioning.

95 ed training, when responding is sensitive to devaluation, inactivation of the DMS greatly attenuates

96 group showed nonselective performance after devaluation indicating that the BLA-DMS pathway is also

97 male (XY) mice became insensitive to outcome devaluation, indicating habitual responding.

98 id attenuate, however, the impact of outcome devaluation, induced by sensory-specific satiety, on ins

99 id, however, attenuate the impact of outcome devaluation, induced by sensory-specific satiety, on ins

100 reversing the order of these infusions left devaluation intact.

101 but not for the subsequent expression of the devaluation involving its transfer to secondary reinforc

102 mance or on the rats' sensitivity to outcome devaluation; lesion and sham groups both reduced respond

103 The shame-devaluation link is also specific: Sadness and anxiety-e

104 enous cocaine self-administration and reward devaluation methods in rats, the present studies examine

105 ts provide evidence for a mechanism by which devaluation modulates a cognitive map of expected reward

106 a hyperbolic model, with the largest reward devaluations occurring at shorter delays.

107 nfusion of protein-synthesis inhibitor after devaluation of a food reward induced by a shift from a f

108 osB should also support greater drug-induced devaluation of a natural reward.

109 f 1 beverage resulted in an explicit hedonic devaluation of a similar nonconsumed beverage (P < 0.001

110 Here we implemented selective devaluation of appetizing food odors in combination with

111 Drug addiction is associated with a relative devaluation of natural or socially-valued reinforcers th

112 odel of cue-induced craving and drug-induced devaluation of natural rewards.

113 conditions (sham lesions, saline infusions), devaluation of one food significantly decreased respondi

114 shell- and sham-lesioned rats, post-training devaluation of one of the two outcomes using a specific

115 al responses and food reinforcers but before devaluation of one reinforcer by selective satiation.

116 al studies suggest no difference between the devaluation of real and fictive outcomes, no neuroimagin

117 l behavior in our task is linked to a neural devaluation of reward realized by a prefrontal modulatio

118 e longer durations of slow movements produce devaluation of reward.

119 nonassociative learning that results in the devaluation of sensory inputs that have little informati

120 were impaired in making object choices after devaluation of the associated food reinforcer.

121 Control rats reduced responding following devaluation of the earned outcome as did those with prev

122 ) render instrumental actions insensitive to devaluation of the instrumental outcome and degradation

123 Devaluation of the outcome of the drug seeking link (i.e

124 sts with the behavior of control rats; after devaluation of the US a significant decrease occurred in

125 ance, which is reduced by the postdecisional devaluation of unchosen options.

126 nd addiction are associated with an apparent devaluation of, and inattention to, natural rewards.

127 anisomycin, whether given after the initial devaluation or after a second devaluation session, aboli

128 nto the IC was effective whether made before devaluation or test.

129 s of adolescents remain sensitive to outcome devaluation or to the influence of a pavlovian-condition

130 s predicted by affective signals (reinforcer devaluation) or by visual signals conveying reward conti

131 Here we used a reinforcer devaluation paradigm to investigate the contribution of

132 Here, we have used a reinforcer devaluation paradigm to test this hypothesis.

133 avior using reversal learning and reinforcer devaluation paradigms.

134 Whereas Pickens et al. found normal devaluation performance in rats when BLA lesions were ma

135 ning BLA lesions disrupted the expression of devaluation performance in rats, using either pavlovian

136 We found that devaluation performance was intact for both groups after

137 airings, Ostlund and Balleine found impaired devaluation performance when BLA lesions were made after

138 MD-lesioned rats were impaired in devaluation performance when switched between Pavlovian

139 ecific information necessary for appropriate devaluation performance, but not in general motivational

140 le to mere exposure to the sucrose US in the devaluation phase.

141 ions left performance insensitive to outcome devaluation, posttraining lesions spared this effect.

142 Experiments 1A and 1B used an outcome devaluation procedure to assess the effects of the lesio

143 After this devaluation procedure, responding to the CS is assessed

144 ated controls were tested using a reinforcer devaluation procedure.

145 ished through an unconditioned stimulus (US) devaluation procedure.

146 conditioned responding after such reinforcer devaluation procedures, animals with BLA lesions made be

147 In reinforcer devaluation procedures, conditioned responding of rats w

148 ange of species, training contingencies, and devaluation procedures.

149 reinforcers, and associative or motivational devaluation procedures.

150 ther conditioned taste aversion or satiation devaluation procedures.

151 m that of BLA for the conditioned reinforcer devaluation process in monkeys.

152 y contrasts with the role of BLA in the same devaluation process.

153 lever press habit evaluated using an outcome devaluation protocol.

154 t, relative to appropriate controls, outcome devaluation recruited both the BLA and IC based on activ

155 OFC in representing current value to support devaluation/revaluation sensitive changes in behavior.

156 A devaluation sensitivity test revealed that both groups c

157 er the initial devaluation or after a second devaluation session, abolished the changes in the value

158 male (XX) mice remained sensitive to outcome devaluation, signifying goal-directed behavior.

159 However, latent learning and devaluation studies show that behavior also shows hallma

160 Devaluation substantially reduced food consumption on th

161 the amygdalectomized monkeys on a reinforcer devaluation task and compared their performance with a g

162 In contrast, the role of the BLA in devaluation task performance once such outcome represent

163 ks, but not when switched from one Pavlovian devaluation task to another Pavlovian devaluation task.

164 The present study used a devaluation task to examine this function.

165 the role of mediodorsal thalamus (MD) in the devaluation task, varying the type of contingencies (Pav

166 ing training and performance of a reinforcer devaluation task.

167 lovian devaluation task to another Pavlovian devaluation task.

168 mpairment in a multiple-reinforcer Pavlovian devaluation task.

169 sensitive to amygdala damage, the reinforcer devaluation task.

170 es to modulate instrumental performance in a devaluation task.

171 s impaired in these groups using the outcome-devaluation task.

172 uggest that MD lesions impair performance in devaluation tasks as a result of an inability to switch

173 when switched between Pavlovian and operant devaluation tasks, but not when switched from one Pavlov

174 mage show impaired performance in reinforcer devaluation tasks, in which the value of the food reinfo

175 ehavior, including performance on reinforcer devaluation tasks.

176 The rats were then given an outcome devaluation test (all experiments) and a test of outcome

177 In the subsequent (instructed) outcome devaluation test and in a novel "slips-of-action" test,

178 e DMS enhanced goal-directed behavior by the devaluation test.

179 During a subsequent round of outcome devaluation testing-used to assess the sensitivity of ac

180 to examine the patterns of activation during devaluation testing.

181 ceived muscimol infusions immediately before devaluation testing.

182 ze habit, confirmed the habitual behavior by devaluation tests, and then, during the maze runs (ca. 3

183 about outcome-specific cues after reinforcer devaluation that are related to behavioral performance a

184 -for example, fear extinction and reinforcer devaluation--that involve updating representations of va

185 Resistance to outcome devaluation (the defining feature of a habit) was shown

186 psilateral lesioned rats were insensitive to devaluation, the contralateral CeN-DLS lesion impaired h

187 associations to direct performance following devaluation, those in the contralateral group could not,

188 tion, rendering performance sensitive to the devaluation treatment.

189 procedure, but no effect of postconditioning devaluation using a sensory preconditioning procedure.

190 e sensitivity of the lever-press response to devaluation was assessed by prefeeding the rats either E

191 arning, was transiently inactivated, outcome devaluation was effective in decreasing drug seeking ind

192 US devaluation was performed in rats that were over- or und

193 hether the effect of mPFC lesions on outcome devaluation was the result of a more fundamental deficit

194 Devaluation was then accomplished in 1 group by inducing

195 enprodil into the BLA only abolished outcome devaluation when given before devaluation.

196 and (iii) minimizing the adverse effects of devaluation when it occurs.

197 creased behavioral sensitivity to reinforcer devaluation, whereas Bdnf knockdown blocked sensitivity.

198 dictive target stimulus were decreased after devaluation, whereas responses to the nondevalued stimul

199 e reward value in humans, we used reinforcer devaluation while measuring neural activity with functio

200 of a close, specific match between shame and devaluation within and across cultures.

201 o change the animal's sensitivity to outcome devaluation without affecting the acquisition or extinct