LEARNING PROCESSES LAB Psychology Report Paper Essay

please according to the request
if the writer write exceed 4 pages, I can pay another money for it

LEARNING PROCESSES LAB Marialaina Nissenbaum Some Resources http://www.apastyle.org/ https://owl.english.purdue.edu/owl/section/2/10/ http://abacus.bates.edu/~ganderso/biology/resources/writing/ HTWgeneral.html APA Format •Times New Roman font • Double space • 12 pt. size font • 1” margins • ½” indent for first line of every paragraph APA Title Page • Running head • Title • Purpose: make your article attractive and distinct • Make it clear and complete with the least amount of words • Name • Institution Introduction • Main purpose: interest your audience and provide context • Should tell a story • Background • Unknown/problem • Question/purpose/hypothesis of the study • Experimental approach • Background: Provide pertinent background information, but DO NOT review the literature (leave this for review articles) • The Unknown/Problem: State the current gap that we have in the topic (that you attempted to fill in) or the problem with previous research (that you attempted to fix) • The Question/Purpose/Hypothesis: This is the central point of your study. Every paragraph in the article relates to it • Experimental Approach: A brief description of the experiment to make clear WHY you are doing it. The “HOW you are doing it” should be in Materials and Methods Introduction Introduction • 1 st paragraph: Grabbing sentence (something about learning), why do we study basic learning in animals?, define key terms (don’t have to define all in one paragraph but where they fit in) • 2 nd paragraph: discuss paper/paper(s)…similar ideas go together (maybe discuss species differences or bring in new definitions) • 3rd: discuss paper(s) • 4th paragraph: What are we testing? What do we predict? Hypotheses • Hypotheses should be as specific as possible • Remember: You are trying to find truth! The more vague your hypotheses, the more vague your conclusions The Shape of the Introduction Introduction Discussion The Shape of the Introduction - Background - Unknown/Problem - Question/Purpose/Hypothesis - Experimental Approach Methods •Subjects •Materials & Preparations •Experiment Procedures • Data Analysis Methods for Experiment 1 • Subjects: • Number of subjects, breed, gender, age, food and water availability, light condition, average weight • Open field: size, number of small squares, color • Objects: • Procedure: • Explain how the test you scored was done • explain what your measurements (DV) mean Information on the Rats • Operant Box • Stainless steel walls • lever and water dispenser • Metal grid floor with bedding in pan below • Indicator lights • 250mm x 250mm x 250mm • Cleaner: ethanol • Subjects: • Age: 3 months • Gender: Male • Breed: Sprague-Dawley • Camera mounted above box to film experiment Results • Graphs to illustrate findings • Number figures and reference them in results text • Include figure legend and relevant statistics • Write in words the findings and brief interpretation. Save relevance for discussion Discussion Interpretation/Answer based on key findings Supporting evidence Comparisons/Contrasts to previous studies Limitations of your study Unexpected findings Hypothesis or models Summary Significance/Implication 1. Briefly restate your hypotheses (what you expect to find). 2. Then discuss what you find and your interpretation in more depth. a) Don’t simply repeat what’s said in results. b) Add new information and broaden the perspective. 3. Compare your results with previous findings in the literature and discuss about the similarity and/or difference. 4. Discuss the implications of your results and directions for future research. Discussion • This is where you can speculate and infer much more than other sections • Possible reasons for findings • Possible confounds • Possible future experiments • Possible relevance to everyday life Discussion • Common problems • The answer/interpretation of your key findings is not provided in the first paragraph • No concluding paragraph is provided. The importance/significance of the study is not clear • Inclusion of irrelevant or peripheral information • Results are repeated or summarized in the Discussion Discussion References • Purpose • Give appropriate credit and direct readers to more information • Should be as accurate and complete as possible • Format • Put in order by the author’s surname, or first author’s surname if there is more than one author • Use hanging indent paragraph style • Double space • For this experiment/lab report, you should at least: • 2 papers from Module 3 • 1 paper you found independent of the module • Resources • Google Scholar • PubMed • ScienceDirect References Reference List References Citing References in Text http://www.apastyle.org/learn/tutorials/basics-tutorial.aspx Coming up… • 11/26 • No class – Thanksgiving ! • 12/3 • Draft of Introduction • Draft of Discussion Nicotine enhances the expression of a sucrose or cocaine conditioned place preference in adult male rats Grace Shin Purpose and hypothesis - Purpose: The reinforcement-enhancing property of nicotine may promote the use of other substances such as rewarding, palatable food or other drugs of abuse. Preclinical investigation= prolonged nicotine exposure enhances sensitization and conditioned place preference to cocaine. + Investigate interaction between nicotine and food/drug cues. - Hypothesis: Single s.c injection of nicotine could enhance the preference for environments associated with palatable food or drug reward. Key word - Conditioned Place Preference + Used to measure the motivation effects of objects or experiences. + (Found if an animal spend significantly more time in the drug-paired compartment verses the compartment that was paired with something else. - Operant learning + Learning through rewards and punishments. - Reinforcement enhancing property: + strengthen subject’s future behavior whenever the behavior is preceded by a stimulus. Materials - Cocaine hydrochloride + 10 mg/kg/ml dose - Sterile 0.9% saline solution - Nicotine hydrogen tartrate - Sucrose + 0.4 mg/kg/ml dose - NaOH - Filter - Male, Sprague- Dawley Rats (36) - CPP chambers Methods (Drugs) - Cocaine hydrochloride (10 mg/kg/ml) was dissolved in sterile 0.9% saline solution. - Nicotine hydrogen tartrate (0.4 mg/kg/ml) was dissolved in 0.9% saline solution. + pH of solution adjusted to 7 using dilute NaOH. Both solutions (nicotine and cocaine) were passed through a 0.22 µm filter= ensure sterility. Methods continued.. (Sucrose pre-exposure) - Rats (sucrose CPP experiment) received two 2-h exposures to 25% sucrose in their home cages. + = reduce novelty-induced hypophagia. - The percent sucrose solution= goal of attaining a modest preference to allow for measurement of a possible nicotine enhancement effort. Sucrose was made by dissolving crystalline sucrose in tap water. - Bottles were placed opposite cage water bottle during sucrose exposure. Bottles were weight before and after sucrose exposure to measure sucrose consumption. Methods continued.. (Conditioned place preference chamber) - Rats were conditioned and tested in CPP chambers + Each chamber had three compartments with distinct wall patterns and floor textures. Compartment A and B= equal in size and dimensions. - Separated by a small middle compartment. - Lighting in compartments A and B were set at 0.2 lx each. - Center chamber was set to 8.3 lx. = reduce inherent preference for small, center compartment. - Infra-red photo beam sensors= recorded how much time the animal spent in each compartment during testing. - Encased in a sound-attenuating cabinet. Methods continued.. (Initial preference assessment) - Day 1= all animals went through a 20 min initial preference assessment to establish baseline preference. + Manually operated guillotine doors were open during testing to allow free access to all chamber compartments. ● Rats were placed into the center compartment, allowed to freely explore for 20 min, and then removed and returned to their home cage. Time spent in each compartment was recorded. Rats (9) that spent more than 60% of their time in a single chamber were excluded from the study. Rats were randomly assigned to sucrose (14)/ Cocaine (13) conditioning groups. Methods... Conditioning sessions (sucrose) - Conditioning sessions were counterbalanced by order and UCS-paired compartment and conducted over 4 days with one UCS and one control session per day seperated by 4 h. + Rats were placed directly into conditioning compartment. ● Ten minutes into each UCS conditioning session, bottles were inserted into CPP compartments (control session- empty, sucrose session - 25% sucrose) ● The rats were removed and returned to their home cage after another 10 min = Total 20 min session. Methods… Preference test (sucrose) - Three preference test was conducted on consecutive days after (24h after conditioning was completed) - Each test: rats were placed into the center compartment of the apparatus and left undisturbed with free access to all compartments for 20 min. - 5 min before preference test 2, each animal received a single injection of 0.4mg/kg nicotine. - 5 min before preference test 3, each animal received a 0.3ml injections of 0.9% saline. - Animals spend 5 min in between injections and the start of preference tests in their home cages. - Returned to their home cage after completion of the 20 min test. Time spent in each compartment was recorded. Methods… Conditioning session (Cocaine) - Counterbalanced by order and UCS- paired compartment and conducted over 4 days with one UCS and one control session per day seperated by 4h. = allows for minimal carryover of cocaine effects to the control session due to the short half life of cocaine/saline injection followed by immediate placement in the conditioning compartment. - Animals remained in the compartment for 60 m in until they were removed and returned to their home cages. Methods continued.. Preference test (cocaine) - Three preference test were conducted on consecutive days (24hrs after conditioning was complete) + Each test, rats received saline injection as a control for the previous cocaine injections during conditioning session. + Placed immediately in the center compartment of the apparatus and left undisturbed with free access to all chamber for 20 min. + Effect of nicotine was examined using a crossover design. + 5 min prior to preference test 2, half the animals received single injections of 0.4 mg/kg nicotine, and half received saline control injections. Repeated for preference test 3. + Spent 5 min between s.c. nicotine or saline control injections, and the start of preference test in their home cages. + After 20 min, rats were removed from the chamber and returned to their home cage. Time spent in each compartment was recorded. Analysis - Total spent in the UCS compartment was compared in the initial preference test. Vs. the first preference test(post-conditioning) with paired- t tests. - Difference scores were calculated for each animal for each post-conditioning test. - ANOVA compared difference scores across the three post-conditioning tests. The relation between initial post-conditioning preference (difference scores) and Nicotine enhancement - two-tailed correlational analyses. + CPP analyses failed to reveal significant effect on injection order. ● Cross injection group data were integrated ● Data was considered statistically significant at p<0.05. Result (the reinforcement-enhancing effect of nicotine on sucrose CPP) - Significant conditioned place preference to the sucrose- paired compartment + t(13)=2.76, p<0.05 - Nicotine significantly increased the amount of time spend in the sucrose-paired compartment, while the nicotine test difference score was significantly different from tests 1 and 3. + F(2.26)=8.50, p<0.05 Individual data= 64% of rats showed a preference for the sucrose-paired compartment after conditioning. Correlation analyses failed to reveal a significant relation between initial preference and nicotine enhancement (R^2=0.001= o=0.91) Result(The reinforcement-enhancing effect of nicotine on cocaine CPP) - Significant conditioned place preference to the cocainepaired compartment + t(12)= 4.53, p<0.05 - Nicotine significantly increased the amount spent in the cocaine-paired compartment + F(2.24)=10.19, p<0.05 ● Nicotine test difference score= significantly different from both saline injections (p>0.05) Individual data show that 85% of rats showed a preference for the cocaine-paired compartment after conditioning. Correlation analyses= significant relationship between initial sucrose preference and nicotine enhancement (R^2=0.77, p<0.0001) Conclusion - Results implies that nicotine enhances the preference for contexts that have previously been paired with sucrose/cocaine. + Nicotine-naive rats= single injection of nicotine caused an increase in the expression of a conditioned place preference for cocaine/sucrose. - Consistent with earlier studies that had similar effects using operant procedures. - Data suggests that nicotine may potentiate the seeking of environments that have been associated with other rewards. - In addition to demonstrating that the reinforcement-enhancing effect of nicotine previously seen in operant procedures extends to CPP, the results have clear relevance to two primary experiments that attempt to combat the negative health consequences of nicotine. Renewal of Drug Seeking by Contextual Cues After Prolonged Extinction in Rats Caitlin Shelley 11/19/2020 Hans S. Crombag and Yavin Shaham Abstract • It is known that contextual stimuli associated with drug exposure can influence the effects of drugs but the effect of contextual stimuli on relapse has been minimally studied • Through a renewal procedure the authors reported contextual stimuli associated with drug exposure plays a major role in relapse and drug seeking behaviors using a mixture of heroin and cocaine, also called a speedball • This study can be used to study mechanisms underlying relapse and drug seeking behaviors through drug associated contextual stimuli Background • Environmental cues play a important role in relapse for humans after prolonged absence (heroin and cocaine) • For lab animals discrete conditioned stimuli or discriminative stimuli have the same effect and extinguished in their absence • Discrete conditioned stimuli-presenting a CS before the US. CS shows no response and US shows response. After multiple trainings US becomes CR in anticipation. • Discriminative stimuli- a stimulus used constantly to elicit a response making the response more likely to occur Continued.. • Discriminative and discrete stimuli have been well studied • Little is known about the test environment and time of day (contextual stimuli) • Important because non-drug studies have shown correlations • Also now there is evidence of contextual stimuli effecting behavior • Speedball is used as it is a potent reinforcer in rats, monkeys, and humans • In the renewal procedure CSs are recovered after extinction in a different context Methods • Male Long-Evan’s rats housed in climate controlled conditions with food and water • Lights were on from 8p.m. to 8 a.m. testing took place during dark cycle • Rats had intravenous catheters inserted • 5 day recovery period with catheters flushed daily Design • Standard operant chambers (27 cm long 25 cm wide 30 cm high) • Constructed using clear plastic with aluminum walls • 2 levers 9cm high retractable and not retractable • Sound attenuating cabinets • Presses on one lever resulted in light above lever illuminating/infusion pump and presses on the other resulted in nothing (opposite walls) • House light provided little light and a fan was present in each cabinet Two Operant Chambers • In A white vertical stripes were on hinged door, doors closed, house light present, fan on, waste tray filled with water and small amount of Vicks vapor rub • In B the hinged door was clear, doors open, red house light, fan off, waste tray filled with 1% acetic acid solution • Tactile, visual, auditory, olfactory differences Procedure • 31 days of experimentation with three phases: • Speedball self administration (10 days) • Extinction training ( 20 days) • Renewal (1 day) • Rats were assigned to either group: • Renewal (n 13) • Control (n 12) • Novel (n 8) Self Administration Phase • Trained on a fixed-ratio 1 (each lever press is reinforced) schedule of reinforcement • A heroin (diacetylmorphine HCL, infusion of 0.025mg/kg) plus cocaine HCl (infusion of 0.25 mg/ kg) mixture (drugs were obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse) • Dose determined by previous work 0.13ml • First 7 days, rats were trained for 3 hr/day, for the last 3 days they were trained for 2 hr/day • Each day the rats transported from the animal colony to the testing rooms • Sessions began with illuminating house light and introduction to the active lever with cue light lit for 30s • Active lever would turn light on for 20s after infusion where presses would not be reinforced (time out) • Ending, house light turned off, lever retracted, rats returned to colony Extinction Phase • Same conditions as before but syringe removed from pump resulting in discrete CS (light and pump sound) • For rats in same context no procedures recorded for rats in same context, 2 hour daily sessions recording lever presses Renewal Phase • A 2 hours test session recording all lever presses was conducted Results • Rats rapidly acquired speedball administration, no group differences for training phase • All rats showed rapid extinction behavior regardless of context high responses decreasing over time • During renewal phase renewal group showed more active lever presses while other groups were similar Results Discussion • Context dependent effect is present causing renewal of drug use after extinction period • Renewal is achieved when rats are placed in two contexts concurrently prior to renewal • Not clear why this occurs despite extensive extinction • One theory is that they signal drug availability triggering an excitatory response • Also possible that conditioned inhibitory properties were paired with extinction chamber • Recent developments: context functions as a retrieval cue meaning the discrete CS is ambiguous because it was paired with both reinforcement and non reinforcement, explaining why switching contexts during extinction did not have a differing effect Implications • These results may help humans after behavioral treatment strategies • High rate of humans relapsing after returning home from treatment Further Reading • Sign tracking studies - Motivation and Emotion Thank you for listening :)