Rats' optimal choice behavior in a gambling-like task

The essential value of the alternatives of the suboptimal choice procedure is different for pigeons and rats

Suboptimal choice is the preference for a discriminative alternative with low probability of reinforcement, over a non-discriminative alternative with higher probability of reinforcement. Pigeons consistently prefer the discriminative alternative, whereas rats prefer the non-discriminative; the variables accounting for this difference are not yet clear. The economic concepts related to demand curves have been used to calculate the essential value of different types of reinforcers, so they may be useful to compare the value of the alternatives in the suboptimal choice procedure. The goal of this study was to calculate the essential value of each of the alternatives presented in the suboptimal choice procedure to assess if pigeons (Experiment 1) and rats (Experiment 2) value them differently. In both experiments, the fixed ratio requirement in the initial link was increased throughout sessions in order to obtain the demand curve and calculate the essential value by fitting the exponential-demand model. A Bayesian Linear Mixed-Effects Model indicated that pigeons had higher essential values for the discriminative alternative, whereas rats obtained higher essential values for the non-discriminative alternative. These results suggest that preferences in the suboptimal choice procedure are indeed based on the essential value of the alternatives, and provide a new paradigm to study the variables affecting this phenomenon.

Suboptimal choice by pigeons is eliminated when key-pecking behavior is replaced by treadle-pressing

In the study of suboptimal choice, a reliable result is that pigeons strongly prefer an alternative that signals whether a reinforcer will be delivered or not over another alternative without that information even if the first provides a lower probability of reinforcement. In the aforementioned research, key pecking has been the operant response and illuminated keys the discriminative stimuli. In the present study we modified both of these aspects of the procedure in order to analyze the generality of suboptimal preferences of pigeons and to investigate the effect of changes in the incentive salience of the discriminative stimuli. To accomplish this, we presented pigeons a choice situation with the same parameters of reinforcement than previous research, but with treadle pressing as the choice response and ambient lights as discriminative stimuli. Under these conditions, most of the pigeons showed optimal behavior and a high degree of discrimination of the stimuli associated with the discriminative alternative. A control condition with key pecking as choice response and keylights as discriminative stimuli showed that the same pigeons turned to be suboptimal, a result that discards the possibility that the optimality found in the main condition was a consequence of a particular characteristic of our sample of subjects or of our procedure. We discuss the influence that the attribution of incentive salience to the discriminative stimuli has on suboptimal choice in both pigeons and rats.

Challenges and Opportunities in Animal Models of Gambling-like Behavior

In the past several years, there has been an explosion of interest in animal models of risk-based decision-making, a fundamental process associated with gambling disorder. While early work focused on establishing various tasks for assaying decision-making, current studies are determining the (subtle and not-so-subtle) influence of cues in driving risky decisions to better understand problem gambling. In addition, these decision-making paradigms are now being used to investigate comorbid conditions such as substance dependence or brain injury and replicating observations from human patients. These animal models have now developed to a point where therapeutic interventions may be assessed for not just gambling disorder, but also a number of other conditions which engender risky decision-making.