The present experiment investigated early-rearing environment modulation of individual differences in impulsive and risky choice. Rats were reared in an isolated condition (IC; n=12), in which they lived alone without novel stimuli, or an enriched condition (EC; n=11), in which they lived among conspecifics with novel stimuli. The impulsive choice task involved choices between smaller-sooner (SS) versus larger-later (LL) rewards. The risky choice task involved choices between certain-smaller (C-S) versus uncertain-larger (U-L) rewards. Following choice testing, incentive motivation to work for food was measured using a progressive ratio task and correlated with choice behavior. HPLC analyses were conducted to determine how monoamine concentrations within the prefrontal cortex (PFC) and nucleus accumbens (NAC) related to behavior in different tasks. IC rats were more impulsive than EC rats, but they did not differ in risky choice behavior. However, choice behavior across tasks was significantly correlated (i.e., the more impulsive rats were also riskier). There were no group differences in monoamine levels, but noradrenergic and serotonergic concentrations were significantly correlated with impulsive and risky choice. Furthermore, serotonin and norepinephrine concentrations in the NAC significantly correlated with incentive motivation and the timing of the reward delays within the choice tasks. These results suggest a role for domain general processes in impulsive and risky choice and indicate the importance of the NAC and/or PFC in timing, reward processing, and choice behavior.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4069030 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.04.024 | DOI Listing |
Psychoneuroendocrinology
December 2024
Department of Psychological Science, University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, USA.
How does stress influence our decision-making? Although numerous studies have attempted to answer this question, their results have been inconsistent-presumably due to methodological heterogeneity. Drawing on cumulative prospect theory, we examined how acute stress influenced risky decision-making. To this end, we randomly assigned 147 participants to an acute stress induction or control condition and subsequently assessed participants' risky decision-making.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNat Neurosci
January 2025
Brain Research Institute, University of Zurich, Zurich, Switzerland.
Appropriate risk evaluation is essential for survival in complex, uncertain environments. Confronted with choosing between certain (safe) and uncertain (risky) options, animals show strong preference for either option consistently across extended time periods. How such risk preference is encoded in the brain remains elusive.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFChild Obes
January 2025
School of Medicine and Dentistry, Griffith University, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.
Family child care (FCC) offers a promising setting for obesity prevention, yet interventions have had varied success, potentially due to insufficient stakeholder input. This study aimed to explore barriers, facilitators, and preferences for healthy eating and physical activity interventions among Australian FCC educators and organization staff. Semi-structured interviews were conducted with 15 FCC educators and 6 staff members, using the framework method for data analysis.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFNPP Digit Psychiatry Neurosci
January 2025
Department of Psychiatry, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, New York, NY USA.
Individuals with general anxiety disorder (GAD) have an impaired future-oriented processing and altered reward perception, which might involve the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (dlPFC). Twenty-nine adults with GAD performed the balloon analogue risk-taking task (BART) and delay discounting task (DDT) during five sessions of transcranial direct current stimulation (tDCS) with different stimulation conditions. The stimulation conditions were: anodal dlPFC (F3)/cathodal vmPFC (Fp2), anodal vmPFC (Fp2)/cathodal dlPFC (F3), anodal dlPFC (F3)/cathodal right shoulder, anodal vmPFC (Fp2)/cathodal left shoulder, and sham stimulation.
View Article and Find Full Text PDFEnter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!