Effects of quinolinic acid-induced lesions of the nucleus accumbens core on inter-temporal choice: a quantitative analysis
- 187 Downloads
There is evidence that lesions of the nucleus accumbens core (AcbC) promote preference for smaller earlier reinforcers over larger delayed reinforcers in inter-temporal choice paradigms. It is not known whether this reflects an effect of the lesion on the rate of delay discounting, on sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude, or both.
We examined the effect of AcbC lesions on inter-temporal choice using a quantitative method that allows effects on delay discounting to be distinguished from effects on sensitivity to reinforcer size.
Materials and methods
Sixteen rats received bilateral quinolinic acid-induced lesions of the AcbC; 14 received sham lesions. They were trained under a discrete-trials progressive delay schedule to press two levers (A and B) for a sucrose solution. Responses on A delivered 50 μl of the solution after a delay d A; responses on B delivered 100 μl after d B. d B increased across blocks of trials, while d A was manipulated across phases of the experiment. Indifference delay d B(50) (value of d B corresponding to 50% choice of B) was estimated in each phase, and linear indifference functions (d B(50) vs d A) derived.
dB(50) increased linearly with dA (r2 > 0.95 in each group). The intercept of the indifference function was lower in the lesioned than the sham-lesioned group; slope did not differ between groups. The lesioned rats had extensive neuronal loss in the AcbC.
The results confirm that lesions of the AcbC promote preference for smaller, earlier reinforcers and suggest that this reflects an effect of the lesion on the rate of delay discounting.
KeywordsQuinolinic acid Excitotoxin Lesion Nucleus accumbens Inter-temporal choice Delay of reinforcement Delay discounting Rat
This work was supported by the Wellcome Trust. We are grateful to Ms. V.K. Bak and Mr R.W. Langley for skilled technical help.
- Bradshaw CM, Body S, Szabadi E (2007) Decision-making and neuroeconomics: delayed reinforcement, neuroscience. In: Squire L (ed) New encyclopedia of neuroscience, MS#1527. Elsevier, Oxford, (in press)Google Scholar
- Cardinal RN, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ (2003) Choosing delayed rewards: perspectives from learning theory, neurochemistry, and neuroanatomy. In: Heather N, Vuchinich RE (eds) Choice, behavioral economics and addiction. Elsevier, Oxford, pp 183–213Google Scholar
- Green L, Fisher EB, Perlow S, Sherman L (1981) Preference reversal and self-control—choice as a function of reward amount and delay. Behav Anal Lett 1:43–51Google Scholar
- Herrnstein R (1981) Self-control as response strength. In: Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E, Lowe CF (eds) Quantification of steady-state operant behaviour. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 3–20Google Scholar
- Killeen PR, Fetterman JG, Bizo LA (1997) Time’s causes. In: Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E (eds) Time and behaviour: psychological and neurobehavioural analyses. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
- Mazur JE (1987) An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Commons ML, Mazur JE, Nevin JA, Rachlin H (eds) Quantitative analyses of behavior: V. The effect of delay and of intervening events on reinforcement value. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, New Jersey, pp 55–73Google Scholar
- Mobini S, Body S, Ho M-Y, Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E (2000b) Effects of lesions of the orbitofrontal cortex on sensitivity to delayed and probabilistic reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 160:290–298Google Scholar
- Paxinos G, Watson C (1998) The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates, 4th edn. Academic, San DiegoGoogle Scholar
- Pinheiro JC, Bates DM (2004) Mixed-effects models in S and S-plus. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- Rachlin H (1974) Self-control. Behaviorism 2:94–107Google Scholar
- Snedecor GW, Cochran WG (1989) Statistical methods, 8th edn. Iowa State University PressGoogle Scholar
- Zar JH (1999) Biostatistical analysis, fourth edition. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJGoogle Scholar