The effects of basolateral amygdala lesions on unblocking

Behavioral Neuroscience

Volumn 126, Issue 2, 2012, Pages 279-289

  Chang, Stephen E ^a   McDannald, Michael A ^a,b   Wheeler, Daniel S ^a,c   Holland, Peter C ^a  

^a JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NATIONAL INSTITUTE ON DRUG ABUSE   (United States)

^c MARQUETTE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Amygdala; Associability; Pearce Hall model; Rescorla Wagner model; Unblocking

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; BASOLATERAL AMYGDALA; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED STUDY; MALE; NONHUMAN; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; REWARD; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; TASK PERFORMANCE; AMYGDALOID NUCLEUS; ANIMAL; LEARNING; LONG EVANS RAT; PATHOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGY;

AMYGDALA; ANIMALS; ASSOCIATION LEARNING; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; MALE; RATS; RATS, LONG-EVANS; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY);

EID: 84864310155     PISSN: 07357044     EISSN: 19390084     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0027576     Document Type: Article

References (38)

1. Blundell, P., Hall, G., & Killcross, S. (2001). Lesions of the basolateral amygdala disrupt selective aspects of reinforcer representation in rats. The Journal of Neuroscience, 21, 9018-9026.
2. Bucci, D. J., Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, P. C. (1998). Removal of cholinergic input to rat posterior parietal cortex disrupts incremental processing of conditioned stimuli. The Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 8038-8046.
3. Calu, D. J., Roesch, M. R., Haney, R. Z., Holland, P. C., & Schoenbaum, G. (2010). Neural correlates of variations in event processing during learning in central nucleus of amygdala. Neuron, 68, 991-1001. doi: 10.1016/j.neuron.2010.11.019
4. Chiba, A. A., Bucci, D. J., Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (1995). Basal forebrain cholinergic lesions disrupt increments but not decrements in conditioned stimulus processing. The Journal of Neuroscience, 15, 7315-7322.
5. Corbit, L. H., & Balleine, B. W. (2005). Double dissociation of basolateral and central amygdala lesions on the general and outcome-specific forms of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 962-970. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4507-04.2005
6. Dickinson, A., Hall, G., & Mackintosh, N. J. (1976). Surprise and the attenuation of blocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 2, 313-322. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.2.4.313
7. Esber, G. R., & Haselgrove, M. (2011). Reconciling the influence of predictiveness and uncertainty on stimulus salience: A model of attention in associative learning. Proceedings of the Royal Society: B, 278, 2553-2561. doi:10.1098/rspb.2011.0836
8. Han, J.-S., Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (1999). Disconnection of the amygdala central nucleus and substantia innominata/nucleus basalis disrupts increments in conditioned stimulus processing in rats. Behavioral Neuroscience, 113, 143-151. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.113.1.143
9. Hatfield, T., Han, J. S., Conley, M., Gallagher, M., & Holland, P. C. (1996). Neurotoxic lesions of basolateral, but not central, amygdala interfere with Pavlovian second-order conditioning and reinforcer devaluation effects. The Journal of Neuroscience, 16, 5256-5265.
10. Holland, P. C. (1977). Conditioned stimulus as a determinant of the form of the Pavlovian conditioned response. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 3, 77-104. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.3.1.77
11. Holland, P. C. (1984). Unblocking in Pavlovian appetitive conditioning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 10, 476-497. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.10.4.476
12. Holland, P. C. (1988). Excitation and inhibition in unblocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 14, 261-279. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.14.3.261
13. Holland, P. C. (2006). Enhanced conditioning produced by surprising increases in reinforcer value are unaffected by lesions of the amygdala central nucleus. Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 85, 30-35. doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2005.07.001
14. Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (1993a). Amygdala central nucleus lesions disrupt increments, but not decrements, in conditioned stimulus processing. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107, 246-253. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.107.2.246
15. Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (1993b). Effects of amygdala central nucleus lesions on blocking and unblocking. Behavioral Neuroscience, 107, 235-245. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.107.2.235
16. Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (1999). Amygdala circuitry in attentional and representational processes. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 3, 65-73. doi:10.1016/S1364-6613(98)01271-6
17. Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (2003). Double dissociation of the effects of lesions of basolateral and central amygdala on CS-potentiated feeding and Pavlovian-instrumental transfer. European Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 1680-1694. doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02585.x
18. Holland, P. C., & Gallagher, M. (2004). Amygdala-frontal interactions and reward expectancy. Current Opinion in Neurobiology, 14, 148-155. doi:10.1016/j.conb.2004.03.007
19. Holland, P. C., Hatfield, T., & Gallagher, M. (2001). Rats with lesions of basolateral amygdala show normal increases in conditioned stimulus processing but reduced conditioned potentiation of eating. Behavioral Neuroscience, 115, 945-950. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.115.4.945
20. Holland, P. C., & Kenmuir, C. (2005). Variations in unconditioned stimulus processing in unblocking. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 31, 155-171. doi:10.1037/0097-7403.31.2.155
21. Holland, P. C., & Maddux, J.-M. (2010). Brain systems of attention in associative learning. In C. J. Mitchell & M. E. LePelley (Eds.), Attention and learning (pp. 305-349). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
22. Johnson, A. W., Gallagher, M., & Holland, P. C. (2009). The basolateral amygdala is critical to the expression of Pavlovian and instrumental outcome-specific reinforcer devaluation effects. The Journal of Neuroscience, 29, 696-704. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3758-08.2009
23. Kamin, L. J. (1968). Attention-like processes in classical conditioning. In M. R. Jones (Ed.), Miami symposium on the prediction of behavior: Aversive stimulation (pp. 9-32). Coral Gables, FL: University of Miami Press.
24. Lee, H. J., Youn, J. M., Gallagher, M., & Holland, P. C. (2008). Temporally-limited role of substantia nigra-central amygdala connections in surprise-induced enhancement of learning. European Journal of Neuroscience, 27, 3043-3049. doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06272.x
25. Lee, H. J., Youn, J. M., O, M. J., Gallagher, M., & Holland, P. C. (2006). Role of substantia nigra-amygdala connections in surprise-induced enhancement of attention. The Journal of Neuroscience, 26, 6077-6081. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1316-06.2006
26. Le Pelley, M. E. (2004). The role of associative history in models of associative learning: A selective review and a hybrid model. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology: Comparative and Physiological Psychology 57 193-243.
27. Mackintosh, N. J. (1975). A theory of attention: Variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychological Review, 82, 276-298.
28. McDannald, M. A., Saddoris, M. P., Gallagher, M., & Holland, P. C. (2005). Lesions of orbitofrontal cortex impair rats' differential outcome expectancy learning but not conditioned stimulus-potentiated feeding. The Journal of Neuroscience, 25, 4626-4632. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5301-04.2005
29. Paxinos, G., & Watson, C. (1998). The rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates. New York, NY: Academic Press.
30. Pearce, J. M., & Hall, G. (1980). A model for Pavlovian learning: Variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychological Review, 87, 532-552. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.87.6.532
31. Pearce, J. M., & Mackintosh, N. J. (2010). Two theoreis of attention: A review and a possible integration. In C. J. Mitchell & M. E. LePelley (Eds.), Attention and learning (pp. 11-39). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
32. Pecoraro, N., & Dallman, M. F. (2005). c-Fos after incentive shifts: Expectancy, incredulity, and recovery. Behavioral Neuroscience, 119, 366-87. doi:10.1037/0735-7044.119.2.366
33. Rescorla, R. A., & Wagner, A. R. (1972). A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: Variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In A. H. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical conditioning II (pp. 64-99). New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
34. Roesch, M. R., Calu, D. J., Esber, G. R., & Schoenbaurm, G. (2010). Neural correlates of variations in event processing during learning in basolateral amygdala. The Journal of Neuroscience, 30, 2464-2471. doi:10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5781-09.2010
35. Schultz, W., & Dickinson, A. (2000). Neuronal coding of prediction errors. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 23, 473-500. doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.23.1.473
36. Sutton, R. S., & Barto, A. G. (1981). Toward a modern theory of adaptive networks: Expectations and prediction. Psychological Review, 88, 135-170. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.88.2.135
37. Trapold, M. A., & Overmier, J. B. (1972). The second learning process in instrumental training. In A. Black & W. F. Prokasy (Eds.), Classical Conditioning II (pp. 427-452). New York, NY: Appleton-CenturyCrofts.
38. Wilson, P. N., Boumphrey, P., & Pearce, J. M. (1992). Restoration of the orienting response to a light by a change in its predictive accuracy. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology B: Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 44, 17-36.