Table 4.
Satiety-specific devaluation: reinforcer consumption and subsequent seeking behavior.
| FR5-Alcohol | FR5-Sucrose | VI30-Alcohol | VI30-Sucrose | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maltodextrin consumed, ml | 12.5 ± 0.8 | 13.9 ± 1.1 | 11.3 ± 0.7 | 12.8 ± 1.1 |
| Reinforcer fluid consumed, ml | 7.3 ± 0.5 a | 13.9 ± 1.3 | 7.9 ± 0.7 a | 13.2 ± 1.3 |
| Alcohol dose, g/kg | 1.4 ± 0.1 | 1.6 ± 0.1 | ||
| Avgcaloric load after maltodextrin, kcal | 1.0 | 1.1 | 0.9 | 1.0 |
| Avg caloric load after reinforcer, kcal | 5.1 | 0.8 | 5.5 | 0.8 |
| Lever presses after maltodextrin | 119.3 ± 13.5 | 117.1 ± 18.4 | 47.3 ± 5.2 | 45.5 ± 5.9 |
| Lever presses after reinforcer | 60.1 ± 13.0 | 92.6 ± 18.0 | 40.1 ± 3.9 | 42.7 ± 5.0 |
| Devaluation ratio b | 0.56 ± 0.13 c | 0.82 ± 0.12 c | 0.91± 0.09 | 1.09 ± 0.15 |
All values are mean ± SE.
a
Significantly less than maltodextrin volume in same group and sucrose volumes in sucrose groups (p<0.05).
b
Lever presses after reinforcer exposure/presses after maltodextrin reinforcer.
c
Collapsed across reinforcer, FR5-trained groups had significantly lower devaluation scores than VI30-trained groups.