Individual differences in the propensity to approach signals vs goals promote different adaptations in the dopamine system of rats
- 1.3k Downloads
The way an individual responds to cues associated with rewards may be a key determinant of vulnerability to compulsive behavioral disorders.
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.
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.
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.
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.
KeywordsAutoshaping Conditioned stimuli Dopamine Goal-tracking Incentive salience Motivation Pavlovian conditioning Sign-tracking
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.
- 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
- 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
- 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
- Hearst E, Jenkins H (1974) Sign-tracking: the stimulus–reinforcer relation and directed action. Monograph of the Psychonomic Society, AustinGoogle Scholar
- 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
- National Research Council (2003) Guidelines for the care and use of mammals in neuroscience and behavioral research. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
- Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New YorkGoogle Scholar