Adolescents exhibit behavioral differences from adults during instrumental learning and extinction
Open accessAbstract
Adolescence is associated with the development of brain regions linked to cognition and emotion. Such changes are thought to contribute to the behavioral and neuropsychiatric vulnerabilities of this period. We compared adolescent (Postnatal Days 28-42) and adult (Postnatal Day 60+) rats as they performed a simple instrumental task and extinction. Rats were trained to poke into a hole for a food-pellet reinforcer. After six days of training, rats underwent extinction sessions in which the previously rewarded behavior was no longer reinforced. During extinction, we examined the effects of continued presentation of a cue light and food restriction. Adults and adolescents exhibited similar performance during training, although adolescents made more task-irrelevant pokes, consistent with increased exploration. Adults made more premature pokes, which could indicate a more exclusive focus on the task. During extinction, adolescents made more perseverative (previously reinforced) pokes than adults. This behavior was strongly modulated by the combination of motivational factors present (food restriction and cue light), indicating that adolescents were differentially sensitive to them. Furthermore, food restriction induced greater open-field activity in adolescents but not in adults. Thus, as the neural circuitry of motivated behavior develops substantially during adolescence, so too does the behavioral sensitivity to motivational factors. Understanding how such factors differently affect adolescents may shed light on mechanisms that lead to the development of disorders that are manifested during this period.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Insensitivity to reward devaluation, in conjunction with resistance to extinction, suggests an enhanced propensity to habit formation in adolescence.
“Insensitivity to reward devaluation, in conjunction with resistance to extinction (Andrzejewski et al., 2011, Brenhouse and Andersen, 2008, Sturman et al., 2010), suggest an enhanced propensity to habit formation in adolescence.”
From Sensitive periods of substance abuse: Early risk for the transition to dependence (2017) · cites this paper as Sturman et al., 2010
Mild food deprivation exacerbates extinction responding to a reward-predictive cue in adolescent rats but not adults.
“elevations in motivational/emotional arousal induced by mild food deprivation were found to exacerbate extinction responding to a cue previously predicting reward among adolescent rats, whereas no interaction of motivational status and the presence of the reward-predictive cue was seen in adults”
From Rewards, aversions and affect in adolescence: emerging convergences across laboratory animal and human data (2011) · cites this paper as Sturman et al, 2010
In adolescent rats, mild food deprivation exacerbated extinction responding to a reward-predictive cue, while no interaction was seen in adults.
“elevations in motivational/emotional arousal induced by mild food deprivation were found to exacerbate extinction responding to a cue previously predicting reward among adolescent rats, whereas no interaction of motivational status and the presence of the reward-predictive cue was seen in adults (Sturman et al, 2010).”
From Rewards, aversions and affect in adolescence: emerging convergences across laboratory animal and human data (2011) · cites this paper as Sturman et al, 2010
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 74 · Cited by 69
- Authors
- Sturman, D. A., Mandell, D. R., & Moghaddam, B.
- ORCID
- Moghaddam, Bita
- Venue
- Behavioral Neuroscience
- Published
- 2010
- Volume
- 124
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 16-25
- ISSN
- 0735-7044 (ISSN-L)
- 1939-0084
- PMC
- PMC2871391
- OpenAlex
- W2076925259
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 74
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 3.30
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Behavioral Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute of Mental Health (MH48404; MH065468)
- Andrew Mellon Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- adolescence, operant conditioning, extinction, dietary restriction, motivational factors, perseveration, exploration, open field behavior, rats, behavioral development
- MeSH terms
- Aging, Animals, Animals, Newborn, Conditioning, Operant, Exploratory Behavior, Extinction, Psychological, Food Deprivation, Male, Reaction Time, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Rats
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review