Login | Register

Valuation of opportunity costs by rats working for rewarding electrical brain stimulation

Title:

Valuation of opportunity costs by rats working for rewarding electrical brain stimulation

Solomon, Rebecca Brana, Conover, Ken and Shizgal, Peter ORCID: https://orcid.org/0000-0003-4265-0792 (2017) Valuation of opportunity costs by rats working for rewarding electrical brain stimulation. PLOS ONE, 12 (8). e0182120. ISSN 1932-6203

[img]
Preview
Text (application/pdf)
Shizgal-plosone-2017.pdf - Published Version
Available under License Creative Commons Attribution.
9MB

Official URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0182120

Abstract

Pursuit of one goal typically precludes simultaneous pursuit of another. Thus, each exclusive activity entails an “opportunity cost:” the forgone benefits from the next-best activity eschewed. The present experiment estimates, in laboratory rats, the function that maps objective opportunity costs into subjective ones. In an operant chamber, rewarding electrical brain stimulation was delivered when the cumulative time a lever had been depressed reached a criterion duration. The value of the activities forgone during this duration is the opportunity cost of the electrical reward. We determined which of four functions best describes how objective opportunity costs, expressed as the required duration of lever depression, are translated into their subjective equivalents. The simplest account is the identity function, which equates subjective and objective opportunity costs. A variant of this function called the “sigmoidal-slope function,” converges on the identity function at longer durations but deviates from it at shorter durations. The sigmoidal-slope function has the form of a hockey stick. The flat “blade” denotes a range over which opportunity costs are subjectively equivalent; these durations are too short to allow substitution of more beneficial activities. The blade extends into an upward-curving portion over which costs become discriminable and finally into the straight “handle,” over which objective and subjective costs match. The two remaining functions are based on hyperbolic and exponential temporal discounting, respectively. The results are best described by the sigmoidal-slope function. That this is so suggests that different principles of intertemporal choice are involved in the evaluation of time spent working for a reward or waiting for its delivery. The subjective opportunity-cost function plays a key role in the evaluation and selection of goals. An accurate description of its form and parameters is essential to successful modeling and prediction of instrumental performance and reward-related decision making.

Divisions:Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Psychology
Item Type:Article
Refereed:Yes
Authors:Solomon, Rebecca Brana and Conover, Ken and Shizgal, Peter
Journal or Publication:PLOS ONE
Date:2017
Funders:
  • Concordia Open Access Author Fund
  • Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada (Peter Shizgal, p.i., RGPIN-308-06 & RGPIN-308-11)
Digital Object Identifier (DOI):10.1371/journal.pone.0182120
ID Code:983209
Deposited By: DANIELLE DENNIE
Deposited On:14 Nov 2017 14:50
Last Modified:18 Jan 2018 17:56

References:

1. Robbins L. An Essay on the Nature and Significance of Economic Science. London, UK: MacMillan and Co; 1935.

2. Shizgal P. Scarce means with alternative uses: Robbins’ definition of economics and its extension to the behavioral and neurobiological study of animal decision making. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2012;6:20. pmid:22363253

3. Frank RH. Microeconomics and behavior. 8th ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Irwin; 2010.

4. Krugman PR, Wells R. Economics. 2nd ed. New York, NY: Worth Publishers; 2009.

5. Stephens DW, Krebs JR. Foraging theory. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press; 1986.

6. Stephens DW, Brown JS, Ydenberg RC. Foraging: behavior and ecology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; 2007.

7. Kahneman D, Tversky A. Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society. 1979;p. 263–292.

8. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Advances in prospect theory: Cumulative representation of uncertainty. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty. 1992 Oct;5(4):297–323.

9. Hamilton AL, Stellar JR, Hart EB. Reward, performance, and the response strength method in self-stimulating rats: validation and neuroleptics. Physiology & behavior. 1985;35(6):897–904.

10. Gallistel CR, Leon M. Measuring the subjective magnitude of brain stimulation reward by titration with rate of reward. Behavioral Neuroscience. 1991;105(6):913–925. pmid:1663762

11. Leon M, Gallistel CR. The function relating the subjective magnitude of brain stimulation reward to stimulation strength varies with site of stimulation. Behavioural Brain Research. 1992;52(2):183–193. pmid:1294198

12. Mark TA, Gallistel CR. Subjective reward magnitude of medial forebrain stimulation as a function of train duration and pulse frequency. Behavioral Neuroscience. 1993;107(2):389–401. pmid:8484902

13. Simmons JM, Gallistel CR. Saturation of subjective reward magnitude as a function of current and pulse frequency. Behavioral Neuroscience. 1994;108(1):151–160. pmid:8192841

14. Arvanitogiannis A, Shizgal P. The reinforcement mountain: allocation of behavior as a function of the rate and intensity of rewarding brain stimulation. Behavioral Neuroscience. 2008;122(5):1126–1138. pmid:18823168

15. Hernandez G, Breton YA, Conover K, Shizgal P. At what stage of neural processing does cocaine act to boost pursuit of rewards? PLoS ONE. 2010;5(11).

16. Trujillo-Pisanty I, Hernandez G, Moreau-Debord I, Cossette MP, Conover K, Cheer JF, et al. Cannabinoid receptor blockade reduces the opportunity cost at which rats maintain operant performance for rewarding brain stimulation. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2011;31(14):5426–5435.

17. Hernandez G, Trujillo-Pisanty I, Cossette MP, Conover K, Shizgal P. Role of dopamine tone in the pursuit of brain stimulation reward. The Journal of neuroscience: the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience. 2012;32(32):11032–11041.

18. Breton YA, Mullett A, Conover K, Shizgal P. Validation and extension of the reward-mountain model. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2013;7:125. pmid:24098275

19. Breton YA, Conover K, Shizgal P. The effect of probability discounting on reward seeking: a three-dimensional perspective. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;8:284.

20. Trujillo-Pisanty I, Conover K, Shizgal P. A new view of the effect of dopamine receptor antagonism on operant performance for rewarding brain stimulation in the rat. Psychopharmacology. 2014;231(7):1351–1364.

21. Solomon RB, Trujillo-Pisanty I, Conover K, Shizgal P. Psychophysical inference of frequency-following fidelity in the neural substrate for brain stimulation reward. Behavioural Brain Research. 2015 Oct;292:327–341. pmid:26057357

22. Conover K, Shizgal P. Employing labor-supply theory to measure the reward value of electrical brain stimulation. Games and Economic Behavior. 2005;52:283–304.

23. Breton YA, Marcus JC, Shizgal P. Rattus Psychologicus: construction of preferences by self-stimulating rats. Behavioural Brain Research. 2009;202(1):77–91. pmid:19447284

24. Conover KL, Shizgal P. Competition and Summation between Rewarding Effects of Sucrose and Lateral Hypothalamic Stimulation in the Rat. Behavioral Neuroscience. 1994;108(3):537–548. pmid:7917048

25. Conover KL, Woodside B, Shizgal P. Effects of Sodium Depletion on Competition and Summation between Rewarding Effects of Salt and Lateral Hypothalamic Stimulation in the Rat. Behavioral Neuroscience. 1994;108(3):549–558. pmid:7917049

26. Conover KL, Shizgal P. Differential Effects of Postingestive Feedback on the Reward Value of Sucrose and Lateral Hypothalamic Stimulation in Rats. Behavioral Neuroscience. 1994;108(3):559–572. pmid:7917050

27. Shizgal P. Neural Basis of Utility Estimation. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 1997;7(2):198–208. pmid:9142755

28. Herrnstein R. On the law of effect. J Exp Anal Behav. 1970;13(2):243–266. pmid:16811440

29. Herrnstein R. Formal properties of the matching law. J Exp Anal Behav. 1974;21(1):159–164. pmid:16811728

30. McDowell JJ. On the Classic and Modern Theories of Matching. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 2005;84(1):111–127. pmid:16156140

31. Gibbon J. Scalar expectancy theory and Weber’s law in animal timing. Psychological Review. 1977;84(3):279–325.

32. Mazur JE. Choice between single and multiple delayed reinforcers. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1986 Jul;46(1):67–77. pmid:3746189

33. Namboodiri VMK, Mihalas S, Marton TM, Hussain Shuler MG. A general theory of intertemporal decision-making and the perception of time. Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience. 2014;8.

34. Frederick S, Loewenstein G, O’Donoghue T. Time Discounting and Time Preference: A Critical Review. Journal of Economic Literature. 2002;p. 351–401.

35. Namboodiri VMK, Mihalas S, Shuler MGH. Rationalizing Decision-Making: Understanding the Cost and Perception of Time. Timing Time Perception Reviews. 2014 Jan;1(1):1–40.

36. Fouriezos G, Randall D. The cost of delaying rewarding brain stimulation. Behavioural Brain Research. 1997;87(1):111–113. pmid:9331479

37. Mazur J, Stellar J, Waraczynski M. Self-control choice with electrical stimulation of the brain. Behav Processes. 1987;151(2-3):143–153.

38. Samuelson P. A Note on the Pure Theory of Consumer’s Behaviour. Economica. 1938;5(17):61–71.

39. Sutton RS, Barto AG. Reinforcement learning: an introduction. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press; 1998.

40. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Transactions on Automatic Control. 1974 Dec;19(6):716–723.

41. Paxinos G, Watson C. The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates. Seventh edition ed. Amsterdam: Elsevier (Academic Press); 2007.

42. Efron B, Tibshirani R. An introduction to the bootstrap. vol. 57. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1993.

43. Solomon RB. The Psychophysics of Reward: Empirical Studies and Modeling of Performance for Medial Forebrain Electrical Stimulation in the Rat [PhD]. Concordia University. Montreal; 2014.

44. Schwarz G. Estimating the Dimension of a Model. The Annals of Statistics. 1978 Mar;6(2):461–464.

45. McFarland DJ, Sibley RM. The behavioural final common path. Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London Series B, Biological sciences. 1975;270(907):265–293. pmid:239416

46. Sonnenschein B, Conover K, Shizgal P. Growth of brain stimulation reward as a function of duration and stimulation strength. Behavioral Neuroscience. 2003;117(5):978–994. pmid:14570548

47. Gallistel CR, Gibbon J. Time, Rate, and Conditioning. Psychological Review. 2000;107(2):289–344. pmid:10789198

48. Herrnstein R. Relative and Absolute Strength of Response as a Function of Frequency of Reinforcement. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1961;4:267–272. pmid:13713775

49. Tversky A, Kahneman D. Judgment under Uncertainty: Heuristics and Biases. Science (New York, NY). 1974;185(4157):1124–1131.

50. Kalenscher T, van Wingerden M. Why We Should Use Animals to Study Economic Decision Making—a Perspective. Frontiers in Neuroscience. 2011;5:82. pmid:21731558

51. Marsh B, Kacelnik A. Framing Effects and Risky Decisions in Starlings. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2002;99(5):3352–3355. pmid:11867709

52. Solomon RB, Conover K, Shizgal P. Estimation of subjective opportunity cost in rats working for rewarding brain stimulation: further progress. In: Society for Neuroscience Abstract Viewer. vol. 37; 2007. p. 742.8.

53. Solomon RB. Subjective estimates of opportunity cost in rats working for rewarding brain stimulation [MA]. Concordia University. Ann Arbor; 2006.

54. Gibbon J, Church RM. Time Left: Linear versus Logarithmic Subjective Time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 1981;7(2):87–107. pmid:7241054

55. Cerutti DT, Staddon JER. Immediacy Versus Anticipated Delay in the Time-Left Experiment: A Test of the Cognitive Hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes. 2004;30(1):45–57. pmid:14709114

56. Staddon JE, Higa JJ. Time and Memory: Towards a Pacemaker-Free Theory of Interval Timing. Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior. 1999 Mar;71(2):215–251. pmid:10220931

57. Hartmann MN, Hager OM, Tobler PN, Kaiser S. Parabolic Discounting of Monetary Rewards by Physical Effort. Behavioural Processes. 2013 Nov;100:192–196. pmid:24140077

58. Klein-Flügge MC, Kennerley SW, Saraiva AC, Penny WD, Bestmann S. Behavioral Modeling of Human Choices Reveals Dissociable Effects of Physical Effort and Temporal Delay on Reward Devaluation. PLOS Computational Biology. 2015 Mar;11(3):e1004116. pmid:25816114

59. Kagel JH, Battalio RC, Green L. Economic choice theory: an experimental analysis of animal behavior. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 1995.

60. Niyogi RK, Breton YA, Solomon RB, Conover K, Shizgal P, Dayan P. Optimal indolence: a normative microscopic approach to work and leisure. Journal of The Royal Society Interface. 2013;11(91):20130969–20130969.

61. Niyogi RK, Shizgal P, Dayan P. Some work and some play: microscopic and macroscopic approaches to labor and leisure. PLoS Computational Biology. 2014;10(12):e1003894. pmid:25474151

62. Niv Y, Daw ND, Joel D, Dayan P. Tonic dopamine: opportunity costs and the control of response vigor. Psychopharmacology. 2007;191(3):507–520. pmid:17031711

63. Wikenheiser AM, Stephens DW, Redish AD. Subjective costs drive overly patient foraging strategies in rats on an intertemporal foraging task. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America. 2013;110(20):8308–8313. pmid:23630289
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.

Repository Staff Only: item control page

Back to top Back to top