Isolating the incentive salience of reward-associated stimuli: Value, choice, and persistence

Learning and Memory

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 2015, Pages 116-127

  Beckmann, Joshua S ^a   Chow, Jonathan J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; CONDITIONING; CONTROLLED STUDY; GOAL ATTAINMENT; LEARNING; MALE; NONHUMAN; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RAT; REINFORCEMENT; REWARD; STATE DEPENDENT LEARNING; TASK PERFORMANCE; ANIMAL; ANIMAL BEHAVIOR; ASSOCIATION; DECISION MAKING; INSTRUMENTAL CONDITIONING; MOTIVATION; SPRAGUE DAWLEY RAT;

ANIMALS; BEHAVIOR, ANIMAL; CHOICE BEHAVIOR; CONDITIONING, OPERANT; CUES; GOALS; MALE; RATS, SPRAGUE-DAWLEY; REINFORCEMENT (PSYCHOLOGY); REWARD;

EID: 84922229171     PISSN: 10720502     EISSN: 15495485     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1101/lm.037382.114     Document Type: Article

References (61)

1. Anderson RI, Spear LP. 2011. Autoshaping in adolescence enhances sign-tracking behavior in adulthood: impact on ethanol consumption. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 98: 250-260.
2. Beckmann JS, Young ME. 2009. Stimulus dynamics and temporal discrimination: implications for pacemakers. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 35: 525-537.
3. Beckmann JS, Marusich JA, Gipson CD, Bardo MT. 2011. Novelty seeking, incentive salience and acquisition of cocaine self-administration in the rat. Behav Brain Res 216: 159-165.
4. Boakes RA. 1977. Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement. In Operant-Pavlovian interactions. (ed. Davis H, Hurwitz H). pp. 67-97. Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
5. Brooks DI, Rasmussen IP, Hollingworth A. 2010. The nesting of search contexts within natural scenes: evidence from contextual cuing. J Exp Psychol Hum Percept Perform 36: 1406-1418.
6. Chang SE. 2014. Effects of orbitofrontal cortex lesions on autoshaped lever pressing and reversal learning. Behav Brain Res 273: 52-56.
7. Chang SE, Holland PC. 2013. Effects of nucleus accumbens core and shell lesions on autoshaped lever-pressing. Behav Brain Res 256: 36-42.
8. Chang SE, Wheeler DS, Holland PC. 2012. Roles of nucleus accumbens and basolateral amygdala in autoshaped lever pressing. Neurobiol Learn Mem 97: 441-451.
9. Clark JJ, Hollon NG, Phillips PE. 2012. Pavlovian valuation systems in learning and decision making. Curr Opin Neurobiol 22: 1054-1061.
10. Cleland GG, Davey GC. 1983. Autoshaping in the rat: the effects of localizable visual and auditory signals for food. J Exp Anal Behav 40: 47-56.
11. Davey GC, Cleland GG, Oakley DA. 1982. Applying Konorski's model of classical conditioning to signal-centered behavior in the rat: some functional similarities between hunger CRs and sign-tracking. Anim Learn Behav 10: 257-262.
12. Dayan P, Berridge KC. 2014. Model-based and model-free Pavlovian reward learning: revaluation, revision, and revelation. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 14: 473-492.
13. Dayan P, Niv Y, Seymour B, Daw ND. 2006. The misbehavior of value and the discipline of the will. Neural Netw 19: 1153-1160.
14. Dion AM, Reichel CM, Bevins RA. 2011. Sign-vs. goal-tracking in a feature positive discrimination task with nicotine: importance of spatial location of the conditional stimulus. Behav Brain Res 218: 341-345.
15. Fitzpatrick CJ, Gopalakrishnan S, Cogan ES, Yager LM, Meyer PJ, Lovic V, Saunders BT, Parker CC, Gonzales NM, Aryee E, et al. 2013. Variation in the form of Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior among outbred male Sprague-Dawley rats from different vendors and colonies: sign-tracking vs. goal-tracking. PLoS One 8: e75042.
16. Flagel SB, Clark JJ, Robinson TE, Mayo L, Czuj A, Willuhn I, Akers CA, Clinton SM, Phillips PE, Akil H. 2011. A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning. Nature 469: 53-57.
17. Gelman A, Hill J. 2006. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/ hierarchical models. Cambridge University Press, New York.
18. Harrison JM. 1979. The control of responding by sounds: unusual effect of reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 32: 167-181.
19. Hogarth L, Dickinson A, Duka T. 2010. The associative basis of cue-elicited drug taking in humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 208: 337-351.
20. Holland PC. 1977. Conditioned stimulus as a determinant of the form of the Pavlovian conditioned response. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 3: 77-104.
21. Holland PC. 1979. Differential effects of omission contingencies on various components of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responding in rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 5: 178-193.
22. Holland PC, Asem JS, Galvin CP, Keeney CH, Hsu M, Miller A, Zhou V. 2014. Blocking in autoshaped lever-pressing procedures with rats. Learn Behav 42: 1-21.
23. Huys QJ, Tobler PN, Hasler G, Flagel SB. 2014. The role of learning-related dopamine signals in addiction vulnerability. Prog Brain Res 211: 31-77.
24. Lesaint F, Sigaud O, Flagel SB, Robinson TE, Khamassi M. 2014. Modelling individual differences in the form of Pavlovian conditioned approach responses: a dual learning systems approach with factored representations. PLoS Comput Biol 10: e1003466.
25. Mackintosh NJ. 1975. A theory of attention: variations in the associability of stimuli with reinforcement. Psychol Rev 82: 276-298.
26. Mahler SV, Berridge KC. 2009. Which cue to "want?" Central amygdala opioid activation enhances and focuses incentive salience on a prepotent reward cue. J Neurosci 29: 6500-6513.
27. Mazur JE. 1987. An adjusting delay procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. In: Quantitative analyses of behavior: effect of delay and intervening events on value. (ed. Commons ML, Mazur JE, Nevin JA, Rachlin H), Vol. 5, pp. 6500-6513. Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
28. Mazur JE. 1987. An adjusting procedure for studying delayed reinforcement. Quantitative Analyses of Behavior 5: 6500-6513.
29. Meyer PJ, Lovic V, Saunders BT, Yager LM, Flagel SB, Morrow JD, Robinson TE. 2012. Quantifying individual variation in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. PLoS One 7: e38987.
30. Meyer PJ, Cogan ES, Robinson TE. 2014. The form of a conditioned stimulus can influence the degree to which it acquires incentive motivational properties. PLoS One 9: e98163.
31. Myung IJ. 2003. Tutorial on maximum likelihood estimation. J Math Psychol 47: 90-100.
32. Nevin JA, Grace RC. 2000. Behavioral momentum and the law of effect. Behav Brain Sci 23: 73-90; discussion 90-130.
33. Olshavsky ME, Song BJ, Powell DJ, Jones CE, Monfils MH, Lee HJ. 2013. Updating appetitive memory during reconsolidation window: critical role of cue-directed behavior and amygdala central nucleus. Front Behav Neurosci 7: 186.
34. Olshavsky ME, Shumake J, Rosenthal AA, Kaddour-Djebbar A, Gonzalez-Lima F, Setlow B, Lee HJ. 2014. Impulsivity, risk-taking, and distractibility in rats exhibiting robust conditioned orienting behaviors. J Exp Anal Behav 102: 162-178.
35. Pearce JM, Hall G. 1980. A model for Pavlovian learning: variations in the effectiveness of conditioned but not of unconditioned stimuli. Psychol Rev 87: 532-552.
36. Pearce JM, Hall G. 1982. Predictive accuracy and stimulus associability: development of a model for Pavlovian learning. In Quantitative analyses of behavior: acquisition. (ed. Commons ML, Hernstein RJ, Wagner AR), Vol. 3, pp. 241-256. Earlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ.
37. Peters J, De Vries TJ. 2014. Pavlovian conditioned approach, extinction, and spontaneous recovery to an audiovisual cue paired with an intravenous heroin infusion. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 231: 447-453.
38. Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Sarkar D. 2007. Linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. In R package version 3, pp. 1-89.
39. Rachlin H, Logue AW, Gibbon J, Frankel M. 1986. Cognition and behavior in studies of choice. Psychol Rev 93: 33-45.
40. Rachlin H, Raineri A, Cross D. 1991. Subjective probability and delay. J Exp Anal Behav 55: 233-244.
41. Rescorla RA, Wagner AR. 1972. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In Classical conditioning II: current research and theory, Vol. 2 Black AH, Prokasy WF, pp. 64-99.
42. Robinson TE, Berridge KC. 2008. The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363: 3137-3146.
43. Robinson TE, Flagel SB. 2009. Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences. Biol Psychiatry 65: 869-873.
44. Robinson TE, Yager LM, Cogan ES, Saunders BT. 2014. On the motivational properties of reward cues: individual differences. Neuropharmacology 76 Pt B: 450-459.
45. Saunders BT, Robinson TE. 2010. A cocaine cue acts as an incentive stimulus in some but not others: implications for addiction. Biol Psychiatry 67: 730-736.
46. Saunders BT, Robinson TE. 2011. Individual variation in the motivational properties of cocaine. Neuropsychopharmacology 36: 1668-1676.
47. Saunders BT, Robinson TE. 2012. The role of dopamine in the accumbens core in the expression of Pavlovian-conditioned responses. Eur J Neurosci 36: 2521-2532.
48. Saunders BT, Robinson TE. 2013. Individual variation in resisting temptation: implications for addiction. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 37: 1955-1975.
49. Saunders BT, Yager LM, Robinson TE. 2013. Cue-evoked cocaine "craving": role of dopamine in the accumbens core. J Neurosci 33: 13989-14000.
50. Saunders BT, O'Donnell EG, Aurbach EL, Robinson TE. 2014. A cocaine context renews drug seeking preferentially in a subset of individuals. Neuropsychopharmacology 39: 2816-2823.
51. Schwartz B, Williams DR. 1972. Two different kinds of key peck in the pigeon: some properties of responses maintained by negative and positive response-reinforcer contingencies. J Exp Anal Behav 18: 201-216.
52. Stiers M, Silberberg A. 1974. Lever-contact responses in rats: automaintenance with and without a negative response-reinforcer dependency. J Exp Anal Behav 22: 497-506.
53. Sutton RS, Barto AG. 1998. Introduction to reinforcement learning. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
54. Timberlake W. 1994. Behavior systems, associationism, and Pavlovian conditioning. Psychon Bull Rev 1: 405-420.
55. TimberlakeW,Wahl G, King D. 1982. Stimulus and response contingencies in the misbehavior of rats. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process 8: 62-85.
56. Tomie A, Grimes KL, Pohorecky LA. 2008. Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse. Brain Res Rev 58: 121-135.
57. Tomie A, Lincks M, Nadarajah SD, Pohorecky LA, Yu L. 2012. Pairings of lever and food induce Pavlovian conditioned approach of sign-tracking and goal-tracking in C57BL/6 mice. Behav Brain Res 226: 571-578.
58. Williams DR, Williams H. 1969. Auto-maintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 12: 511-520.
59. Yates JR, Batten SR, Bardo MT, Beckmann JS. 2014. Role of ionotropic glutamate receptors in delay and probability discounting in the rat. Psychopharmacology (Berl) Advance online publication.
60. Yin HH, Knowlton BJ. 2006. The role of the basal ganglia in habit formation. Nat Rev Neurosci 7: 464-476.
61. Young ME, Clark MH, Goffus A, Hoane MR. 2009. Mixed effects modeling of Morris water maze data: advantages and cautionary notes. Learn Motiv 40: 160-177.