Psychopharmacology

, Volume 191, Issue 3, pp 599–607 | Cite as

Individual differences in the propensity to approach signals vs goals promote different adaptations in the dopamine system of rats

  • Shelly B. Flagel
  • Stanley J. Watson
  • Terry E. Robinson
  • Huda Akil
Original Investigation

Abstract

Rationale

The way an individual responds to cues associated with rewards may be a key determinant of vulnerability to compulsive behavioral disorders.

Objectives

We studied individual differences in Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior and examined the expression of neurobiological markers associated with the dopaminergic system, the same neural system implicated in incentive motivational processes.

Methods

Pavlovian autoshaping procedures consisted of the brief presentation of an illuminated retractable lever (conditioned stimulus) followed by the response-independent delivery of a food pellet (unconditioned stimulus), which lead to a Pavlovian conditioned response. In situ hybridization was performed on brains obtained either following the first or last (fifth) day of training.

Results

Two phenotypes emerged. Sign-trackers (ST) exhibited behavior that seemed to be largely controlled by the cue that signaled impending reward delivery; whereas goal-trackers (GT) preferentially approached the location where the reward was delivered. Following a single training session, ST showed greater expression of dopamine D1 receptor mRNA relative to GT. After 5 days of training, GT exhibited greater expression levels of tyrosine hydroxylase, dopamine transporter, and dopamine D2 receptor mRNA relative to ST.

Conclusions

These findings suggest that the development of approach behavior towards signals vs goal leads to distinct adaptations in the dopamine system. The sign-tracker vs goal-tracker phenotype may prove to be a valuable animal model to investigate individual differences in the way incentive salience is attributed to environmental stimuli, which may contribute to the development of addiction and other compulsive behavioral disorders.

Keywords

Autoshaping Conditioned stimuli Dopamine Goal-tracking Incentive salience Motivation Pavlovian conditioning Sign-tracking 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge the technical assistance of Tracy Simmons, James Stewart, Sharon Burke, and Jennifer Fitzpatrick. We would also like to thank James Beals for assistance with preparing the figures and Brady West (CSCAR, University of Michigan) for providing statistical consultation.

References

  1. Berridge KC, Robinson TE (2003) Parsing reward. Trends Neurosci 26:507–513PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boakes R (1977) Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In: Davis H, HMB H (eds) Operant-pavlovian interactions. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp 67–97Google Scholar
  3. Breland K, Breland M (1961) The misbehavior of organisms. Am Psychol 16:681–683CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown B, Hemmes N, Vaca SCd, Pagano C (1993) Sign and goal tracking during delay and trace autoshaping in pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 21:360–368Google Scholar
  5. Burns M, Domjan M (1996) Sign tracking versus goal tracking in the sexual conditioning of male Japanese quail (Coturnix japonica). J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 22:297–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Dalley JW, Laane K, Theobald DE, Armstrong HC, Corlett PR, Chudasama Y, Robbins TW (2005) Time-limited modulation of appetitive Pavlovian memory by D1 and NMDA receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 102:6189–6194PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Davey GC, Cleland GG, Oakley DA, Jacobs JL (1984) The effect of early feeding experience on signal-directed response topography in the rat. Physiol Behav 32:11–15PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Falk J, Feingold D (1987) Environmental and cultural factors in the behavioral actions of drugs. In: HY M (ed) Psychopharmacology: the third generation of progress. Raven, New York, pp 1503–1510Google Scholar
  9. Hearst E, Jenkins H (1974) Sign-tracking: the stimulus–reinforcer relation and directed action. Monograph of the Psychonomic Society, AustinGoogle Scholar
  10. Heinz A, Siessmeier T, Wrase J, Hermann D, Klein S, Grusser SM, Flor H, Braus DF, Buchholz HG, Grunder G, Schreckenberger M, Smolka MN, Rosch F, Mann K, Bartenstein P (2004) Correlation between dopamine D(2) receptors in the ventral striatum and central processing of alcohol cues and craving. Am J Psychiatry 161:1783–1789PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Holland PC (1980) CS–US interval as a determinant of the form of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responses. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 6:155–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jenkins HM, Moore BR (1973) The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav 20:163–181PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kabbaj M, Devine DP, Savage VR, Akil H (2000) Neurobiological correlates of individual differences in novelty-seeking behavior in the rat: differential expression of stress-related molecules. J Neurosci 20:6983–6988PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Kemenes G, Benjamin PR (1989) Goal-tracking behavior in the pond snail, Lymnaea stagnalis. Behav Neural Biol 52:260–270PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Meneses A (2003) A pharmacological analysis of an associative learning task: 5-HT(1) to 5-HT(7) receptor subtypes function on a pavlovian/instrumental autoshaped memory. Learn Mem 10:363–372PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Meneses A, Manuel-Apolinar L, Rocha L, Castillo E, Castillo C (2004) Expression of the 5-HT receptors in rat brain during memory consolidation. Behav Brain Res 152:425–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. National Research Council (2003) Guidelines for the care and use of mammals in neuroscience and behavioral research. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  18. Newlin DB (1992) A comparison of drug conditioning and craving for alcohol and cocaine. Recent Dev Alcohol 10:147–164PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Newlin DB (1999) Evolutionary game theory and multiple chemical sensitivity. Toxicol Ind Health 15:313–322PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Purdy JE, Roberts AC, Garcia CA (1999) Sign tracking in cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). J Comp Psychol 113:443–449PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Silva FJ, Silva KM, Pear JJ (1992) Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance. J Exp Anal Behav 57:17–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Tomie A (1996) Locating reward cue at response manipulandum (CAM) induces symptoms of drug abuse. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20:505–535PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Tomie A, Aguado AS, Pohorecky LA, Benjamin D (2000) Individual differences in pavlovian autoshaping of lever pressing in rats predict stress-induced corticosterone release and mesolimbic levels of monoamines. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 65:509–517PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uslaner JM, Acerbo MJ, Jones SA, Robinson TE (2006) The attribution of incentive salience to a stimulus that signals an intravenous injection of cocaine. Behav Brain Res 169:320–324PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar
  26. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Thanos PP, Logan J, Gatley SJ, Gifford A, Ding YS, Wong C, Pappas N (2002) Brain DA D2 receptors predict reinforcing effects of stimulants in humans: replication study. Synapse 46:79–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Williams D, Williams H (1969) Automaintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 12:511–520PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shelly B. Flagel
    • 1
  • Stanley J. Watson
    • 1
  • Terry E. Robinson
    • 2
  • Huda Akil
    • 1
  1. 1.Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience InstituteUniversity of MichiganAnn ArborUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of MichiganAnn ArborUSA

Personalised recommendations