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.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Berridge KC, Robinson TE (2003) Parsing reward. Trends Neurosci 26:507–513
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 67–97
Breland K, Breland M (1961) The misbehavior of organisms. Am Psychol 16:681–683
Brown B, Hemmes N, Vaca SCd, Pagano C (1993) Sign and goal tracking during delay and trace autoshaping in pigeons. Anim Learn Behav 21:360–368
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 22:297–306
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 102:6189–6194
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 32:11–15
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 1503–1510
Hearst E, Jenkins H (1974) Sign-tracking: the stimulus–reinforcer relation and directed action. Monograph of the Psychonomic Society, Austin
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 161:1783–1789
Holland PC (1980) CS–US interval as a determinant of the form of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responses. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 6:155–174
Jenkins HM, Moore BR (1973) The form of the auto-shaped response with food or water reinforcers. J Exp Anal Behav 20:163–181
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 20:6983–6988
Kemenes G, Benjamin PR (1989) Goal-tracking behavior in the pond snail, Lymnaea stagnalis. Behav Neural Biol 52:260–270
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 10:363–372
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 152:425–436
National Research Council (2003) Guidelines for the care and use of mammals in neuroscience and behavioral research. National Academy Press, Washington, DC
Newlin DB (1992) A comparison of drug conditioning and craving for alcohol and cocaine. Recent Dev Alcohol 10:147–164
Newlin DB (1999) Evolutionary game theory and multiple chemical sensitivity. Toxicol Ind Health 15:313–322
Purdy JE, Roberts AC, Garcia CA (1999) Sign tracking in cuttlefish (Sepia officinalis). J Comp Psychol 113:443–449
Silva FJ, Silva KM, Pear JJ (1992) Sign- versus goal-tracking: effects of conditioned-stimulus-to-unconditioned-stimulus distance. J Exp Anal Behav 57:17–31
Tomie A (1996) Locating reward cue at response manipulandum (CAM) induces symptoms of drug abuse. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 20:505–535
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 65:509–517
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 169:320–324
Verbeke G, Molenberghs G (2000) Linear mixed models for longitudinal data. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York
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 46:79–82
Williams D, Williams H (1969) Automaintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J Exp Anal Behav 12:511–520
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.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
This work was supported by grants from the National Institute of Drug Abuse to H.A. (R01 DA013386) and T.E.R. (R37 DA04294) and from the Office of Naval Research to H.A. and S.J.W. (N00014-02-1-0879).
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Flagel, S.B., Watson, S.J., Robinson, T.E. et al. Individual differences in the propensity to approach signals vs goals promote different adaptations in the dopamine system of rats. Psychopharmacology 191, 599–607 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0535-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-006-0535-8