Skip to main content

Main menu

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT

User menu

Search

  • Advanced search
eNeuro
eNeuro

Advanced Search

 

  • HOME
  • CONTENT
    • Early Release
    • Featured
    • Current Issue
    • Issue Archive
    • Blog
    • Collections
    • Podcast
  • TOPICS
    • Cognition and Behavior
    • Development
    • Disorders of the Nervous System
    • History, Teaching and Public Awareness
    • Integrative Systems
    • Neuronal Excitability
    • Novel Tools and Methods
    • Sensory and Motor Systems
  • ALERTS
  • FOR AUTHORS
  • ABOUT
    • Overview
    • Editorial Board
    • For the Media
    • Privacy Policy
    • Contact Us
    • Feedback
  • SUBMIT
PreviousNext
Negative Results, Cognition and Behavior

Male goal-tracker and sign-tracker rats do not differ in neuroendocrine or behavioral measures of stress-reactivity

Sofia A. Lopez, Eman Mubarak, Charlotte Yang, Aram Parsegian, Marin Klumpner, Paolo Campus and Shelly B. Flagel
eNeuro 17 March 2021, ENEURO.0384-20.2021; https://doi.org/10.1523/ENEURO.0384-20.2021
Sofia A. Lopez
1Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Eman Mubarak
2Undergraduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Charlotte Yang
2Undergraduate Program in Neuroscience, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Aram Parsegian
3Michigan Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Marin Klumpner
3Michigan Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Paolo Campus
3Michigan Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
Shelly B. Flagel
1Neuroscience Graduate Program, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
3Michigan Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
4Psychiatry Department, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI
  • Find this author on Google Scholar
  • Find this author on PubMed
  • Search for this author on this site
  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF
Loading

Abstract

Environmental cues attain the ability to guide behavior via learned associations. As predictors, cues can elicit adaptive behavior and lead to valuable resources (e.g., food). For some individuals, however, cues are transformed into incentive stimuli and elicit motivational states that can be maladaptive. The goal-tracker/sign-tracker animal model captures individual differences in cue-motivated behaviors, with reward-associated cues serving as predictors of reward for both phenotypes but becoming incentive stimuli to a greater degree for sign-trackers. While these distinct phenotypes are characterized based on Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior, they exhibit differences on a number of behaviors relevant to psychopathology. To further characterize the neurobehavioral endophenotype associated with individual differences in cue-reward learning, neuroendocrine and behavioral profiles associated with stress and anxiety were investigated in male goal-tracker, sign-tracker, and intermediate responder rats. It was revealed that baseline corticosterone increases with Pavlovian learning, but to the same degree, regardless of phenotype. No significant differences in behavior were observed between goal-trackers and sign-trackers during an elevated plus maze or open field test, nor were there differences in corticosterone response to the open field test or physiological restraint. Upon examination of central markers associated with stress-reactivity, we found that sign-trackers have greater glucocorticoid receptor mRNA expression in the ventral hippocampus, with no phenotypic differences in the dorsal hippocampus or prelimbic cortex. These findings demonstrate that goal-trackers and sign-trackers do not differ on stress- and anxiety-related behaviors, and suggest that differences in neuroendocrine measures between these phenotypes can be attributed to distinct cue-reward learning styles.

Significance statement

While the goal-tracker/ sign-tracker animal model derives from individual differences in Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior, other traits, including some of relevance to addiction and post-traumatic stress disorder, have been shown to co-exist with the propensity to sign-track. The extent to which this model encompasses differences in aversive arousal and associated neuroendocrine measures, however, remains largely unexplored. Here we show that behavioral and corticosterone responseto stress-related paradigms do not differ between goal-trackers and sign-trackers. However, glucocorticoid receptor expression in the ventral hippocampus does differbetween phenotypes, suggesting that this central marker that is typically associated with stress-responsivity, may, in fact, play an important role in appetitive motivation.

  • Corticosterone
  • Glucocorticoid Receptors
  • Incentive Salience
  • Stress-reactivity

Footnotes

  • Authors report no conflict of interest.

This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license, which permits unrestricted use, distribution and reproduction in any medium provided that the original work is properly attributed.

Back to top
Email

Thank you for sharing this eNeuro article.

NOTE: We request your email address only to inform the recipient that it was you who recommended this article, and that it is not junk mail. We do not retain these email addresses.

Enter multiple addresses on separate lines or separate them with commas.
Male goal-tracker and sign-tracker rats do not differ in neuroendocrine or behavioral measures of stress-reactivity
(Your Name) has forwarded a page to you from eNeuro
(Your Name) thought you would be interested in this article in eNeuro.
CAPTCHA
This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
View Full Page PDF
Citation Tools
Male goal-tracker and sign-tracker rats do not differ in neuroendocrine or behavioral measures of stress-reactivity
Sofia A. Lopez, Eman Mubarak, Charlotte Yang, Aram Parsegian, Marin Klumpner, Paolo Campus, Shelly B. Flagel
eNeuro 17 March 2021, ENEURO.0384-20.2021; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0384-20.2021

Citation Manager Formats

  • BibTeX
  • Bookends
  • EasyBib
  • EndNote (tagged)
  • EndNote 8 (xml)
  • Medlars
  • Mendeley
  • Papers
  • RefWorks Tagged
  • Ref Manager
  • RIS
  • Zotero
Share
Male goal-tracker and sign-tracker rats do not differ in neuroendocrine or behavioral measures of stress-reactivity
Sofia A. Lopez, Eman Mubarak, Charlotte Yang, Aram Parsegian, Marin Klumpner, Paolo Campus, Shelly B. Flagel
eNeuro 17 March 2021, ENEURO.0384-20.2021; DOI: 10.1523/ENEURO.0384-20.2021
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo
  • Tweet Widget
  • Facebook Like
  • Google Plus One

Jump to section

  • Article
  • Info & Metrics
  • eLetters
  • PDF

Keywords

  • corticosterone
  • glucocorticoid receptors
  • incentive salience
  • Stress-reactivity

Responses to this article

Jump to comment:

No eLetters have been published for this article.

Related Articles

Cited By...

More in this TOC Section

Negative Results

  • Closed-Loop Acoustic Stimulation Enhances Sleep Oscillations But Not Memory Performance
  • Cyfip1 Haploinsufficiency Does Not Alter GABAA Receptor δ-Subunit Expression and Tonic Inhibition in Dentate Gyrus PV+ Interneurons and Granule Cells
  • Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Receptor Agonist Treatment Does Not Reduce Abuse-Related Effects of Opioid Drugs
Show more Negative Results

Cognition and Behavior

  • Population-level age effects on the white matter structure subserving cognitive flexibility in the human brain
  • Neck Vascular Biomechanical Dysfunction Precedes Brain Biochemical Alterations in a Murine Model of Alzheimer’s Disease
  • Spontaneous oscillatory activity in episodic timing: an EEG replication study and its limitations
Show more Cognition and Behavior

Subjects

  • Cognition and Behavior
  • Home
  • Alerts
  • Follow SFN on BlueSky
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Facebook
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on Twitter
  • Follow Society for Neuroscience on LinkedIn
  • Visit Society for Neuroscience on Youtube
  • Follow our RSS feeds

Content

  • Early Release
  • Current Issue
  • Latest Articles
  • Issue Archive
  • Blog
  • Browse by Topic

Information

  • For Authors
  • For the Media

About

  • About the Journal
  • Editorial Board
  • Privacy Notice
  • Contact
  • Feedback
(eNeuro logo)
(SfN logo)

Copyright © 2026 by the Society for Neuroscience.
eNeuro eISSN: 2373-2822

The ideas and opinions expressed in eNeuro do not necessarily reflect those of SfN or the eNeuro Editorial Board. Publication of an advertisement or other product mention in eNeuro should not be construed as an endorsement of the manufacturer’s claims. SfN does not assume any responsibility for any injury and/or damage to persons or property arising from or related to any use of any material contained in eNeuro.