If reward-associated cues acquire the properties of incentive stimuli they can come to powerfully control behavior, and potentially promote maladaptive behavior. Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties: they are attractive, they are themselves desired, and they can spur instrumental actions. We have found, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which animals attribute Pavlovian incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. The purpose of this paper was to develop criteria for identifying and classifying individuals based on their propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. To do this, we conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of rats (N = 1,878) subjected to a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure. We then used the propensity of animals to approach a cue predictive of reward (one index of the extent to which the cue was attributed with incentive salience), to characterize two behavioral phenotypes in this population: animals that approached the cue (“sign-trackers”) vs. others that approached the location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers”). This variation in Pavlovian approach behavior predicted other behavioral indices of the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. Thus, the procedures reported here should be useful for making comparisons across studies and for assessing individual variation in incentive salience attribution in small samples of the population, or even for classifying single animals.

No abstract

No abstract

Animals vary considerably in the degree to which they attribute incentive salience to cues predictive of reward. When a discrete cue (conditional stimulus) is repeatedly paired with delivery of a food reward (unconditional stimulus) only some rats (“sign-trackers”; STs) come to find the cue itself an attractive and desirable incentive stimulus. For other rats (“goal-trackers”; GTs) the cue is an effective conditional stimulus – it evokes a conditional response – but it is less attractive and less desirable. Given that STs have particular difficulty resisting reward cues, and are thought to have poor inhibitory control over their behavior, we hypothesized that they may also be more impulsive. There are, however, multiple forms of impulsivity; therefore, we compared STs and GTs on two tests of so-called impulsive action – a 2-choice serial reaction time task and a differential reinforcement of low rates of responding task, and one test of impulsive choice - a delay discounting choice procedure. We found that relative to GTs, STs were more impulsive on the two tests of impulsive action, but not on the test of impulsive choice. We speculate that when these two traits combine, that is, when an individual is not only prone to attribute incentive salience to reward cues but also prone to impulsive action, they may be especially susceptible to impulse control disorders, including addiction.