No abstract

The present series of experiments aimed to pinpoint the source of nucleus accumbens core (AcbC) effects on delay discounting. Rats were trained with an impulsive choice procedure between an adjusting smaller sooner reward and a fixed larger later reward. The AcbC-lesioned rats produced appropriate choice behavior when the reward magnitude was equal. An increase in reward magnitude resulted in a failure to increase preference for the larger later reward in the AcbC-lesioned rats, whereas a decrease in the larger later reward duration resulted in normal alterations in choice behavior in AcbC-lesioned rats. Subsequent experiments with a peak timing (Experiments 2 and 3) and a behavioral contrast (Experiment 4) indicated that the AcbC-lesioned rats suffered from decreased incentive motivation during changes in reward magnitude (Experiments 2 and 4) and when expected rewards were omitted (Experiments 2 and 3), but displayed intact anticipatory timing of reward delays (Experiments 2 and 3). The results indicate that the nucleus accumbens core is critical for determining the incentive value of rewards, but does not participate in the timing of reward delays.

Individual differences in impulsive choice behavior have been linked to a variety of behavioral problems including substance abuse, smoking, gambling, and poor financial decision-making. Given the potential importance of individual differences in impulsive choice as a predictor of behavioral problems, the present study sought to measure the extent of individual differences in a normal sample of hooded Lister rats. Three experiments utilized variations of a delay discounting task to measure the degree of variation in impulsive choice behavior across individual rats. The individual differences accounted for 22-55% of the variance in choice behavior across the three experiments. In Experiments 2 and 3, the individual differences were still apparent when behavior was measured across multiple choice points. Large individual differences in the rate of responding, and modest individual differences in timing of responding were also observed during occasional peak trials. The individual differences in timing and rate, however, did not correlate consistently with individual differences in choice behavior. This suggests that a variety of factors may affect choice behavior, response rate, and response timing.

There is growing evidence that a change in reward magnitude or value alters interval timing, indicating that motivation and timing are not independent processes as was previously believed. The present paper reviews several recent studies, as well as presenting some new evidence with further manipulations of reward value during training vs. testing on a peak procedure. The combined results cannot be accounted for by any of the current psychological timing theories. However, in examining the neural circuitry of the reward system, it is not surprising that motivation has an impact on timing because the motivation/valuation system directly interfaces with the timing system. A new approach is proposed for the development of the next generation of timing models, which utilizes knowledge of the neuroanatomy and neurophysiology of the reward system to guide the development of a neurocomputational model of the reward system. The initial foundation along with heuristics for proceeding with developing such a model is unveiled in an attempt to stimulate new theoretical approaches in the field.

Changes in reward magnitude or value have been reported to produce effects on timing behavior, which have been attributed to changes in the speed of an internal pacemaker in some instances and to attentional factors in other cases. The present experiments therefore aimed to clarify the effects of reward magnitude on timing processes. In Experiment 1, rats were trained to discriminate a short (2 s) vs. a long (8 s) signal followed by testing with intermediate durations. Then, the reward on short or long trials was increased from 1 to 4 pellets in separate groups. Experiment 2 measured the effect of different reward magnitudes associated with the short vs. long signals throughout training. Finally, Experiment 3 controlled for satiety effects during the reward magnitude manipulation phase. A general flattening of the psychophysical function was evident in all three experiments, suggesting that unequal reward magnitudes may disrupt attention to duration.