On the relationship between anticipatory behaviour in a Pavlovian paradigm and Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer in rats (Rattus norvegicus)

Bos, Ruud van den; Harst, Johanneke van der; Vijftigschild, Natalie; Spruijt, Berry M.; Luijtelaar, Gilles van; Maes, Roald

doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2003.12.017

Cited by 17 publications

(15 citation statements)

References 25 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Thus, we have shown that subjective reward value influences PIT in humans. To our knowledge, only one previous study in rodents has investigated the impact of reward magnitude on PIT and found that specific PIT was insensitive to reward magnitude (i.e., number of food pellets received during learning) by comparing the size of the PIT effect of a “low reward” to a “high reward” group (van den Bos et al, 2004). However, in the rodent study it is difficult to judge how strongly the subjective reward value differed between the “low reward” vs. the “high reward” group whereas subjective value was precisely measured here using the modified BDM.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monetary, Food, and Social Rewards Induce Similar Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects

Lehner

Balsters²,

Herger³

et al. 2017

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Multiple types of reward, such as money, food or social approval, are capable of driving behavior. However, most previous investigations have only focused on one of these reward classes in isolation, as such it is not clear whether different reward classes have a unique influence on instrumental responding or whether the subjective value of the reward, rather than the reward type per se, is most important in driving behavior. Here, we investigate behavior using a well-established reward paradigm, Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT), and three different reward types: monetary, food and social rewards. The subjective value of each reward type was matched using a modified Becker-DeGroot-Marschak (BDM) auction where subjective reward value was expressed through physical effort using a bimanual grip force task. We measured the influence of reward-associated stimuli on how participants distributed forces between hands when reaching a target effort range on the screen bimanually and on how much time participants spent in this target range. Participants spent significantly more time in the target range (15% ± 2% maximal voluntary contraction) when a stimulus was presented that was associated with a reward used during instrumental conditioning or Pavlovian conditioning compared to a stimulus associated with a neutral outcome (i.e., general PIT). The strength of the PIT effect was modulated by subjective value (i.e., individuals who showed a stronger PIT effect rated the value of rewards more highly), but not by reward type, demonstrating that stimuli of all reward types were able to act as appetitive reinforcers and influenced instrumental responding, when matched to the same subjective reward value. This is the first demonstration that individually matched monetary, food and social rewards are equally effective as appetitive reinforcers in PIT. These findings strengthen the hypotheses that the subjective value is crucial for how much reward-associated stimuli influence behavior.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Monetary, Food, and Social Rewards Induce Similar Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects

Lehner

Balsters²,

Herger³

et al. 2017

Front. Behav. Neurosci.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…*P < 0.05, **P < 0.01. these behaviors are both indices of cue-driven behavior, innate propensity toward PA and PIT may be driven by separate neurocircuitry. Indeed, other reports have suggested that PA and PIT are not correlated and are differentially sensitive to changes in contingency and reward magnitude (Van den Bos et al, 2004). Our own findings have shown that PIT, but not PA, predicts resistance to extinction that is mediated by innate differences in prefrontal plasticity (Barker et al, 2012a).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 46%

Epigenetic and pharmacological regulation of 5HT3 receptors controls compulsive ethanol seeking in mice

Barker

Zhang

Villafañe

et al. 2014

Eur J of Neuroscience

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Factors underlying individual vulnerability to develop alcoholism are largely unknown. In humans, risk for alcoholism is associated with elevated cue reactivity. Recent evidence suggests that in animal models, reactivity to reward-paired cues is predictive of addictive behaviors. To model cue reactivity in mice, we used a Pavlovian approach (PA) paradigm in which mice were trained to associate a cue with delivery of a food reinforcer. We then investigated the relationship between PA status with habitual and compulsive-like ethanol seeking. After training mice to respond for 10% ethanol, habitual behavior was investigated using both an outcome devaluation paradigm, in which ethanol was devalued via association with lithium chloride induced malaise, and a contingency degradation paradigm in which the relationship between action and outcome was disrupted. Compulsive-like behavior was investigated in a modified conditioned place preference paradigm in which footshock was paired with the reward-paired chamber. We saw that high PA was predictive of habitual and compulsive-like ethanol seeking. Additionally, innate risk status was related to epigenetic changes in the gene encoding the requisite subunit of the 5HT3 receptor, Htr3a, as well as 5HT3A protein expression in the amygdala. We then used pharmacological tools to demonstrate that risk status determines the ability of a 5HT3 antagonist to reduce compulsive ethanol seeking. These data indicate that risk status can be identified prior to any alcohol exposure by assessment of cue reactivity, and further, that this endophenotype may be predictive of response to pharmacological treatment for components of alcoholism.

show abstract

“…These results indicate that the enhanced conditioned magazine approach observed in Experiments 1 and 2 is likely to be independent of the effects of amphetamine sensitization on outcome-selective PIT. Indeed, a number of studies have shown a lack of correspondence between measures of conditioned approach and responding during PIT (Delamater and Holland 2008; Delamater and Oakeshott 2007; Holmes et al 2010; van den Bos et al 2004), suggesting that these forms of responses have different neural underpinnings. The lack of effect of amphetamine sensitization on conditioned inhibition of magazine approach following backward conditioning may be because inhibitory and excitatory effects of stimuli appear to rely on separate neural circuits and are differentially affected by amphetamine exposure (Murphy et al 2008).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The effects of amphetamine exposure on outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer in rats

Shiflett

2012

Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale Repeated exposure to psychostimulants alters behavioral responses to reward-related cues; however, the motivational underpinnings of this effect have not been fully characterized. Objectives The following study was designed to examine how amphetamine sensitization affects performance in rats on a series of Pavlovian and operant tasks that distinguish between general-incentive and outcome-selective forms of conditioned responses. Methods Adult male rats underwent Pavlovian and instrumental training for food pellet rewards. Following training, rats were sensitized to d-amphetamine (2 mg/kg for 7 days). Rats were subsequently tested on an outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) task, an outcome-reinstatement task, and an outcome devaluation task. Additionally, in a separate experiment PIT was assessed in amphetamine-sensitized and control rats using a Pavlovian backward-conditioned stimulus. Results Repeated amphetamine exposure sensitized locomotor activity to acute amphetamine challenge. Amphetamine altered responses to CS presentations by increasing conditioned approach. During tests of PIT amphetamine-treated rats showed no outcome-selectivity in their responding, responding to a CS whether or not it shared a common outcome with the instrumental response. No effect of amphetamine sensitization was observed on tests of outcome-selective reinstatement by outcome delivery, or action selection based on outcome value. Amphetamine-sensitized rats showed impaired outcome-selective PIT to a backward CS but were unaltered in conditioned approach. Conclusions Amphetamine sensitization prevents outcome-selective responding during PIT, which is dissociable from amphetamine’s effects on conditioned approach. These data suggest fundamental alterations in how stimuli motivate action in addiction.

show abstract

On the relationship between anticipatory behaviour in a Pavlovian paradigm and Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer in rats (Rattus norvegicus)

Cited by 17 publications

References 25 publications

Monetary, Food, and Social Rewards Induce Similar Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects

Monetary, Food, and Social Rewards Induce Similar Pavlovian-to-Instrumental Transfer Effects

Epigenetic and pharmacological regulation of 5HT3 receptors controls compulsive ethanol seeking in mice

The effects of amphetamine exposure on outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer in rats

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About