No abstract

No abstract

The development of addiction involves a transition from casual to compulsive patterns of drug use. This transition to addiction is accompanied by many drug-induced changes in the brain and associated changes in psychological functions. In this article we present a critical analysis of the major theoretical explanations of how drug-induced alterations in psychological function might cause a transition to addiction. These include: (a) the traditional hedonic view that drug pleasure and subsequent unpleasant withdrawal symptoms are the chief causes of addiction; (b) the view that addiction is due to aberrant learning, especially the development of strong stimulus-response habits; (c) our incentive-sensitization view, which suggests that sensitization of a neural system that attributes incentive salience causes compulsive motivation or "wanting" to take addictive drugs; and (d) the idea that dysfunction of frontal cortical systems, which normally regulate decision making and inhibitory control over behavior, leads to impaired judgment and impulsivity in addicts.

Advances in neurobiology permit neuroscientists to manipulate specific brain molecules, neurons and systems. This has lead to major advances in the neuroscience of reward. Here, it is argued that further advances will require equal sophistication in parsing reward into its specific psychological components: (1) learning (including explicit and implicit knowledge produced by associative conditioning and cognitive processes); (2) affect or emotion (implicit 'liking' and conscious pleasure) and (3) motivation (implicit incentive salience 'wanting' and cognitive incentive goals). The challenge is to identify how different brain circuits mediate different psychological components of reward, and how these components interact.

In recent years significant progress has been made delineating the psychological components of reward and their underlying neural mechanisms. Here we briefly highlight findings on three dissociable psychological components of reward: 'liking' (hedonic impact), 'wanting' (incentive salience), and learning (predictive associations and cognitions). A better understanding of the components of reward, and their neurobiological substrates, may help in devising improved treatments for disorders of mood and motivation, ranging from depression to eating disorders, drug addiction, and related compulsive pursuits of rewards.

Individuals make choices and prioritize goals using complex processes that assign value to rewards and associated stimuli. During Pavlovian learning, previously neutral stimuli that predict rewards can acquire motivational properties, whereby they themselves become attractive and desirable incentive stimuli. But individuals differ in whether a cue acts solely as a predictor that evokes a conditional response, or also serves as an incentive stimulus, and this determines the degree to which a cue might bias choice or even promote maladaptive behavior. Here we use rats that differ in the incentive motivational properties they attribute to food cues to probe the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine in stimulus-reward learning. We show that intact dopamine transmission is not required for all forms of learning in which reward cues become effective predictors. Rather, dopamine acts selectively in a form of reward learning in which “incentive salience” is assigned to reward cues. In individuals with a propensity for this form of learning, reward cues come to powerfully motivate and control behavior. This work provides insight into the neurobiology of a form of reward learning that confers increased susceptibility to disorders of impulse control.

We present a brief overview of the incentive sensitization theory of addiction. This posits that addiction is caused primarily by drug-induced sensitization in the brain mesocorticolimbic systems that attribute incentive salience to reward-associated stimuli. If rendered hypersensitive, these systems cause pathological incentive motivation ('wanting') for drugs. We address some current questions including: what is the role of learning in incentive sensitization and addiction? Does incentive sensitization occur in human addicts? Is the development of addiction-like behaviour in animals associated with sensitization? What is the best way to model addiction symptoms using animal models? And, finally, what are the roles of affective pleasure or withdrawal in addiction?

Some people who repeatedly use stimulant drugs, such as amphetamine (AMPH), develop an AMPH-induced psychosis that is similar to paranoid schizophrenia. There has been, therefore, considerable interest in characterizing the effects of chronic stimulant drug treatment on brain and behavior in non-human animals, and in developing an animal model of AMPH psychosis. A review of this literature shows that in non-human animals chronic AMPH treatment can produce at least two different syndromes, and both of these have been proposed as animal models of AMPH psychosis. The first syndrome is called 'AMPH neurotoxicity', and is produced by maintaining elevated brain concentrations of AMPH for prolonged periods of time. AMPH neurotoxicity is characterized by what has been termed 'hallucinatory-like' behavior, which occurs in association with brain damage resulting in the depletion of striatal DA and other brain monoamines. The second syndrome is called 'behavioral sensitization', and is produced by the repeated intermittent administration of lower doses of AMPH. Behavioral sensitization is characterized by a progressive and enduring enhancement in many AMPH-induced behaviors, and is not accompanied by brain damage or monoamine depletion. It is argued that the changes in the brain and behavior associated with the phenomenon of behavioral sensitization provide a better 'model' of AMPH psychosis than those associated with AMPH neurotoxicity. Much of the review involves a critical analysis of hypotheses regarding the biological basis of behavioral sensitization. Research on this question has focused on mesotelencephalic DA systems, and suggestions that behavioral sensitization is accompanied by: an increase in postsynaptic DA receptors; an increase in DA synthesis; an increase in DA utilization and/or release; and a decrease in DA autoreceptors, are evaluated. It is concluded that there is not convincing evidence for an increase in postsynaptic DA receptors or in DA synthesis in animals sensitized to AMPH. In contrast, there is strong evidence to support the notion that behavioral sensitization is due to enhanced mesotelencephalic DA release, especially upon re-exposure to the drug. The evidence that this enhancement in DA release is due to autoreceptor subsensitivity was found to be equivocal, and therefore other hypotheses should be entertained. Lastly, evidence is discussed in support of the idea that behavioral sensitization is not unique to the psychopharmacology of stimulant drugs, but may be produced by many environmental stimuli that directly or indirectly activate brain catecholamine systems.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)