Spatial location is critical for conditioning place preference with visual but not tactile stimuli.

Abstract

The roles of visual, tactile, and spatial location cues were studied in 6 conditioned place preference (CPP) experiments with ethanol (2 g/kg) in mice (of the DBA/2J strain). Visual cues were effective conditioned stimuli (CSs) when consistently presented in the same spatial location, but not when the same cue was presented in two different locations during training. In contrast, tactile CSs were effective regardless of spatial location during training. Moreover, spatial location controlled CPP expression when visual cues were used but not when tactile cues were used. However, spatial location per se was not an effective CS. These studies suggest that CPP conditioned to tactile cues is mediated by brain systems different from those mediating CPP conditioned to visual-spatial cues.

Roles of the Nucleus Accumbens and Amygdala in the Acquisition and Expression of Ethanol-Conditioned Behavior in Mice

“…As in previous studies in DBA/2J mice (Gremel and Cunningham, 2007;Cunningham et al, 2006b), ethanol given immediately before the conditioning trial induced increases in locomotor activity (for group means and statistical comparisons, see Table 2). In experiment 1, lesions of the Amy only slightly reduced this ethanol-induced activation.…”

“…The response measured during expression testing is approach and maintenance of contact with the previously drug-paired cue, without administration of the conditioning drug. Although theoretically pavlovian approach behavior, conditioned reinforcement, and conditioned incentive may all be operating in CPP, it is likely that only the latter two processes are involved in our procedure because animals are responding to a tactile cue in the dark (Cunningham et al, 2006b). Lesion-induced deficits in the acquisition of CPP could be attributed to a disruption in the primary rewarding effects of ethanol or to a decrement in learning the association between the cue and ethanol (Bardo and Bevins, 2000;Cunningham et al, 2006a).…”

Role of test activity in ethanol-induced disruption of place preference expression in mice

“…Each animal received four 5-min conditioning trials of each type on alternating days over a period of 8 days, with the presentation order of CS+ and CS− trials counterbalanced within each group. A one-compartment training procedure was used on all trials (Bevins and Cunningham 2006;Cunningham et al 2006b). That is, the assigned tactile cue was present on both sides of the apparatus, and the animal had access to the entire apparatus.…”

Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

“…A CPP has even been described as "an awkward form of autoshaping" (Newlin, 1992). However, the nature of the psychological process that leads to a CPP is ambiguous (see Cunningham et al, 2006). Whilst the initial learning in CPP may involve Pavlovian processes, behavior on the test day may not be reflective of Pavlovian conditional approach (McAlonan et al, 1993;White, 1996;White et al, 2005).…”

“…Whilst the initial learning in CPP may involve Pavlovian processes, behavior on the test day may not be reflective of Pavlovian conditional approach (McAlonan et al, 1993;White, 1996;White et al, 2005). For example, Cunningham et al (2006) obtained a CPP using tactile stimuli in the dark, and argued the CPP was probably not due to Pavlovian conditional approach because animals could not detect the relevant stimulus from a distance and thereby be attracted to it. They argued that the CPP was due to conditional reinforcement.…”