↓ Skip to main content

Individual variability in behavioral flexibility predicts sign-tracking tendency

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
2 X users

Readers on

mendeley
62 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Individual variability in behavioral flexibility predicts sign-tracking tendency
Published in
Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience, November 2015
DOI 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00289
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen M. Nasser, Yu-Wei Chen, Kimberly Fiscella, Donna J. Calu

Abstract

Sign-tracking rats show heightened sensitivity to food- and drug-associated cues, which serve as strong incentives for driving reward seeking. We hypothesized that this enhanced incentive drive is accompanied by an inflexibility when incentive value changes. To examine this we tested rats in Pavlovian outcome devaluation or second-order conditioning prior to the assessment of sign-tracking tendency. To assess behavioral flexibility we trained rats to associate a light with a food outcome. After the food was devalued by pairing with illness, we measured conditioned responding (CR) to the light during an outcome devaluation probe test. The level of CR during outcome devaluation probe test correlated with the rats' subsequent tracking tendency, with sign-tracking rats failing to suppress CR to the light after outcome devaluation. To assess Pavlovian incentive learning, we trained rats on first-order (CS+, CS-) and second-order (SOCS+, SOCS-) discriminations. After second-order conditioning, we measured CR to the second-order cues during a probe test. Second-order conditioning was observed across all rats regardless of tracking tendency. The behavioral inflexibility of sign-trackers has potential relevance for understanding individual variation in vulnerability to drug addiction.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 62 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 2 3%
Switzerland 1 2%
Unknown 59 95%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 14 23%
Researcher 14 23%
Student > Bachelor 6 10%
Student > Master 6 10%
Student > Doctoral Student 5 8%
Other 9 15%
Unknown 8 13%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 19 31%
Neuroscience 19 31%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 6 10%
Computer Science 3 5%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 5%
Other 1 2%
Unknown 11 18%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 25 June 2019.
All research outputs
#14,827,682
of 22,831,537 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#2,038
of 3,171 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#157,689
of 285,121 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
#61
of 92 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,831,537 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 32nd percentile – i.e., 32% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 3,171 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 285,121 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 92 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 25th percentile – i.e., 25% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.