Cited by 72Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Risk‐preferring rats make worse decisions and show increased incubation of craving after cocaine self‐administration

Ferland, Jacqueline‐Marie N., Winstanley, Catharine A.·2017·Addiction Biology

Abstract

Maladaptive decision‐making may play an integral role in the development and maintenance of an addiction. Substance‐dependent individuals make riskier choices on the Iowa Gambling Task, and these deficits persist during withdrawal and are predictive of relapse. However, it is unclear from clinical studies whether this cognitive impairment is a cause or consequence of drug use. We trained male Long‐Evans rats on the rat Gambling Task, a rodent analogue of the Iowa Gambling Task, to determine how choice preference influenced, and was influenced by, cocaine self‐administration, withdrawal and incubation of craving. Rats that exhibited a preference for the risky, disadvantageous options at baseline were uniquely and adversely affected by cocaine self‐administration. Risky choice was exacerbated in these rats when decision‐making was assessed during the same diurnal period as cocaine self‐administration, whereas the choice pattern of optimal decision‐makers was unaffected. This decision‐making deficit was maintained during 30 days of withdrawal and correlated with greater cue‐induced incubation of craving. Risk‐preferring rats also made more drug‐seeking responses during cocaine self‐administration. These data demonstrate that poor decision‐making prior to contact with addictive drugs is associated with a pro‐addictive behavioural phenotype, characterized by further increased risky choice and heightened responding for drug both during cocaine self‐administration and withdrawal. Such findings indicate that the elevated risky decision‐making observed in substance‐dependent populations is not merely circumstantial, but makes an important contribution to addiction vulnerability and severity that can now be effectively modelled in laboratory rats.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/adb.12388

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Authors
Ferland, J. N., & Winstanley, C. A.
Affiliations
University of British Columbia (CA)
Corresponding author
Ferland, Jacqueline‐Marie N.
Venue
Addiction Biology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2016-03-22
Volume
22
Issue
4
Pages
991-1001
ISSN
  • 1355-6215 (ISSN-L)
  • 1369-1600
OpenAlex
W2309365610
Cited by
72
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 3
FWCI
6.17
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Addiction Biology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Michael Smith Health Research BC
  • Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
risk preferences, risky decision making, cocaine self-administration, cocaine withdrawal, cue-induced craving, drug-seeking behavior, addiction vulnerability, relapse
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Cocaine, Decision Making, Disease Models, Animal, Male, Risk, Self Administration, Dopamine Uptake Inhibitors, Cocaine-Related Disorders, Rats, Long-Evans, Rats, Craving

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