Avoid-approach conflict behaviors differentially affected by anxiolytics: implications for a computational model of risky decision-making

Walters, Cody J.; Jubran, Jerrius; Sheehan, Ayaka; Erickson, Matthew T.; Redish, A. David

doi:10.1007/s00213-019-05197-0

Cited by 19 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Unlike this task, our tasks focus on active (rather than passive) suppression of defensive responses to obtain rewards during the conflict, which simulates real-life challenges more readily than other tasks (facing threats driven by foraging behavior). In addition, contrasted with predator-based conflict models ( Choi and Kim, 2010 ; Kimm and Choi, 2018 ; Walters et al, 2019 ), the use of discrete conditioned signals in the crossing-mediated conflict task allows precise timing of choice behaviors triggered by threat and reward cues. Taken together, our behavioral test battery (composed of our three tasks and control experiments) allow for the separation of discrete variables controlling behavior in a drive competition setting in the same individual (separation of crossing behaviors that involve conflict and those that lack conflict) or in separate groups of animals (step-down avoidance memory and foraging behaviors mediated by conflict or lack of conflict).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, approach/avoidance conflict tasks have been useful in validating benzodiazepines like diazepam (DZPM) ( Vogel et al, 1971 ; Rodgers et al, 1997 ; Calhoon and Tye, 2015 ). More recent conflict animal models have often focused on studying the decision animals make to avoid threats while forgoing the opportunity or delaying the time to obtain rewards ( Moscarello and LeDoux, 2013 ; Bravo-Rivera et al, 2014 ; Friedman et al, 2015 ; Burgos-Robles et al, 2017 ; Piantadosi et al, 2017 ; Schumacher et al, 2018 ; Choi et al, 2019 ; Miller et al, 2019 ; Verharen et al, 2019 ; Walters et al, 2019 ). Yet, the ability of animals to choose to forage for resources by confronting threats remains understudied and lack a behavioral test battery to comprehensively characterize it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Conflict Test Battery for Studying the Act of Facing Threats in Pursuit of Rewards

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survival depends on the ability of animals to avoid threats and approach rewards. Traditionally, these two opposing motivational systems have been studied separately. In nature, however, they regularly compete for the control of behavior. When threat- and reward-eliciting stimuli (learned or unlearned) occur simultaneously, a motivational conflict emerges that challenges individuals to weigh available options and execute a single behavioral response (avoid or approach). Most previous animal models using approach/avoidance conflicts have often focused on the ability to avoid threats by forgoing or delaying the opportunity to obtain rewards. In contrast, behavioral tasks designed to capitalize on the ability to actively choose to execute approach behaviors despite threats are scarce. Thus, we developed a behavioral test battery composed of three conflict tasks to directly study rats confronting threats to obtain rewards guided by innate and conditioned cues. One conflict task involves crossing a potentially electrified grid to obtain food on the opposite end of a straight alley, the second task is based on the step-down threat avoidance paradigm, and the third one is a modified version of the open field test. We used diazepam to pharmacologically validate conflict behaviors in our tasks. We found that, regardless of whether competing stimuli were conditioned or innate, a low diazepam dose decreased risk assessment and facilitated taking action to obtain rewards in the face of threats during conflict, without affecting choice behavior when there was no conflict involved. Using this pharmacologically validated test battery of ethologically designed innate/learned conflict tasks could help understand the fundamental brain mechanisms underlying the ability to confront threats to achieve goals.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict Test Battery for Studying the Act of Facing Threats in Pursuit of Rewards

et al. 2021

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Our finding that diazepam facilitates overcoming threats to obtain rewards, is consistent with the notion that this benzodiazepine reduces threat-related responses in conflict with reward-seeking behaviors. Previous conflict work has shown that diazepam increases: time spent in the open arms of elevated plus maze (Rex, Stephens et al 1996, Chaouloff, Durand et al 1997, Dalvi and Rodgers 1999, time spent in the center of an open field that includes food (Britton and Britton 1981, Bodnoff, Suranyi-Cadotte et al 1989, Rex, Stephens et al 1996, time spent in an illuminated but not a dark compartment (Chaouloff, Durand et al 1997), foraging behavior (Walters, Jubran et al 2019) as well as increased rates of punished reward responding (Vogel, Beer et al 1971) (Paterson and Hanania 2010) and conditioned suppression during conflict (Kilts, Commissaris et al 1981, Commissaris andRech 1982). Consistently, we found that rats injected with diazepam decreased the time spent to cross and step-down from a safe zone to an electrified grid and increased the time spent in the center of a brightly lit open field that also includes food.…”

Section: Diazepam During Conflict Testsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Traditionally, approach-avoidance conflict tasks have been useful in validating antianxiety drugs like diazepam (Vogel, Beer et al 1971, Rodgers, Cao et al 1997, Calhoon and Tye 2015. More recent conflict-mediated animal models have often focused on studying the decision animals make to avoid threats while forgoing the opportunity to obtain rewards (Moscarello and LeDoux 2013, Bravo-Rivera, Roman-Ortiz et al 2014, Friedman, Homma et al 2015, Burgos-Robles, Kimchi et al 2017, Piantadosi, Yeates et al 2017, Schumacher, Villaruel et al 2018, Choi, Jean-Richard-Dit-Bressel et al 2019, Miller, Marcotulli et al 2019, Verharen, van den Heuvel et al 2019, Walters, Jubran et al 2019. Intriguingly, the ability of animals to choose to forage for resources by overcoming threats remains understudied and lack behavioral tasks to characterize it.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Conflict-mediated tasks for studying the act of facing threats in pursuit of rewards

Illescas-Huerta

Ramı́rez-Lugo

Sierra

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Survival depends on the ability of animals to avoid threats and approach rewards. Traditionally, these two opposing motivational systems have been studied separately. In nature, however, they regularly occur simultaneously. When threat- and reward-eliciting stimuli (learned or unlearned) co-occur, a motivational conflict emerges that challenges individuals to weigh available options and execute a single behavioral response (avoid or approach). Previous animal models using approach-avoidance conflicts have often focused on the ability to avoid threats by forgoing the opportunity to obtain rewards. In contrast, behavioral tasks designed to capitalize on the ability to actively choose to execute approach behaviors despite threats are lacking. Thus, we developed three conflict-mediated tasks to directly study rats confronting threats to obtain rewards guided by innate and conditioned cues. One conflict task involves crossing a potentially electrified grid to obtain food on the opposite end of a straight alley, the second task is based on the step-down threat avoidance paradigm, and the third one is a modified version of the open field test. We used diazepam to pharmacologically validate conflict-mediated behaviors in our tasks. We found that, regardless of whether competing stimuli were conditioned or innate, a low diazepam dose facilitated taking action to obtain rewards in the face of threats during conflict, without affecting choice behavior when there was no conflict involved. Using this validated set of innate/learned conflict-mediated tasks could help understand the underlying brain mechanisms that allow animals to confront threats, by actively suppressing defensive responses, to achieve goals.

show abstract

“…This involves considering the weights of each emotional memory because animals choose what behavior to execute guided by the relative weighs of opposing memories. Both early and recent works have made efforts to characterize approach-avoidance conflict (Miller, 1944;Choi and Kim, 2010;Friedman et al, 2015;Burgos-Robles et al, 2017;Schumacher et al, 2018;Choi et al, 2019;Verharen et al, 2019;Walters et al, 2019). We recently developed two related approach-avoidance conflict animal models that are set to separate discrete variables (reward memory retrieval, threat memory retrieval and their competition) in the same individual by putting variable weigh on reward-or threat-related memories through training, and therefore are amenable to study both sides of the coin: when reward has higher relative value than threat and vice versa.…”

Section: Using Conflict Choice Behavior To Understand Competing Emotimentioning

confidence: 99%

From Isolated Emotional Memories to Their Competition During Conflict

Bravo-Rivera

Sotres-Bayón

2020

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aversive or rewarding experiences are remembered better than those of lesser survival significance. These emotional memories, whether negative or positive, leave traces in the brain which can later be retrieved and strongly influence how we perceive, how we form associations with environmental stimuli and, ultimately, guide our decision-making. In this review aticle, we outline what constitutes an emotional memory by focusing on threat-and reward-related memories and describe how they are formed in the brain during learning and reformed during retrieval. Finally, we discuss how the field is moving from understanding emotional memory brain circuits separately, towards studying how these two opposing brain systems interact to guide choices during conflict. Here, we outline two novel tasks in rodents that model opposing binary choices (approach or avoid) guided by competing emotional memories. The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is a major integration hub of emotional information which is also known to be critical for decision-making. Consequently, brain circuits that involve this brain region may be key for understanding how the retrieval of emotional memories flexibly orchestrates adaptive choice behavior. Because several mental disorders (e.g., drug addiction and depression) are characterized by deficits in decision-making in the face of conflicting emotional memories (maladaptively giving more weight to one memory over the other), the development of choice-based animal models for emotional regulation could give rise to new approaches for the treatment of these disorders in humans.

show abstract

Avoid-approach conflict behaviors differentially affected by anxiolytics: implications for a computational model of risky decision-making

Cited by 19 publications

References 51 publications

Conflict Test Battery for Studying the Act of Facing Threats in Pursuit of Rewards

Conflict Test Battery for Studying the Act of Facing Threats in Pursuit of Rewards

Conflict-mediated tasks for studying the act of facing threats in pursuit of rewards

From Isolated Emotional Memories to Their Competition During Conflict

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About