These tools will no longer be maintained as of December 31, 2024. Archived website can be found here. PubMed4Hh GitHub repository can be found here. Contact NLM Customer Service if you have questions.


Pubmed for Handhelds

PUBMED FOR HANDHELDS

Search MEDLINE/PubMed

  • Title: Subject control as a determinant of the reinforcing properties of intracranial stimulation.
    Author: Tsang WK, Stutz RM.
    Journal: Physiol Behav; 1984 May; 32(5):795-802. PubMed ID: 6333691.
    Abstract:
    There has been some controversy whether experimenter-administered electrical stimulation of the brain is aversive or simply less reinforcing than that delivered via self-stimulation. Rats with MFB-LH electrodes self-stimulated with high, medium, and low currents and the self-produced rates were tape recorded. In Experiment 1, the rats were allowed to choose between self-administered versus replayed ESB. When both types of stimulation were available at medium intensities, the rats preferred to self-administer the ESB. This preference was increased when the re-played stimulation was presented at a lower intensity than the self-administered ESB. However, the preference for contingent ESB decreased when the intensity of the experimenter administered ESB was increased suggesting that experimenter-administered ESB is not aversive. In Experiment 2, the rats chose between experimenter administered ESB delivered at the played-back self-generated rate versus a regular averaged rate. All Ss preferred the previously self-generated mode. In Experiment 3, the rats were deprived of water and given four daily competition tests between experimenter administered ESB versus water. All rats "self-dehydrated" again demonstrating that experimenter-administered ESB is not aversive. It is concluded that rats prefer to control the rate at which ESB is presented, but that non-contingent stimulation is clearly not aversive.
    [Abstract] [Full Text] [Related] [New Search]