Research reportIndividual variation in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to an appetitive cue predicts the propensity to attribute motivational salience to an aversive cue
Introduction
Cues in the environment that have been associated with emotionally salient events often themselves come to trigger complex emotional and motivational states that can powerfully influence behavior. For example, eating behavior can be triggered in humans and other animals by exposure to cues associated with food (e.g., the sight of a fast-food restaurant), even when the subject is sated [1], [2], [3]. This basic psychological process can have undesirable consequences, for example, spurring excessive eating that can contribute to obesity. Similarly, in addicts, drug-associated cues can induce craving, which often leads to continued drug use or relapse [4], [5]. In other circumstances, relatively innocuous cues that were associated with a previous trauma can induce extreme fear and avoidance behaviors, e.g., a fireworks display inducing panic in a war veteran [6].
Preclinical studies have shown, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the degree to which animals attribute incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. For example, when a food reward is paired with a localizable cue the cue itself becomes attractive, eliciting approach towards it, only in some rats (“sign-trackers,” STs); other rats direct their behavior away from the cue towards to location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers,” GTs) [7], [8], [9]. Furthermore, a food cue is more “desired” in STs than GTs, in that they will work harder to get it [10]. Drug cues also acquire greater control over behavior in STs than GTs. For example, STs are more susceptible to cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine self-administration behavior, suggesting they may be more vulnerable to develop addiction-like behaviors than GTs [11]. Thus, the extent to which individuals attribute predictive reward cues with incentive motivational properties may confer vulnerability to disorders of impulse control.
There is also considerable individual variation in the extent to which cues associated with aversive stimuli acquire control over behavior [12], and this trait may contribute to vulnerability to anxiety disorders [13], [14]. For example, variation in the magnitude of conditioned fear responses in animals has been proposed as a model of vulnerability to post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) [12], [15]. Indeed, pathological hyper-reactivity to environmental cues is a central feature common to several psychiatric disorders. In the case of substance abuse, “cue reactivity” is well-documented and includes psychological cravings, physiological responses, and engagement in actual drug use behaviors in response to drug-related cues or contexts [16], [17]. Similarly, PTSD is defined in part by excessive emotional, physiological, and behavioral responses to trauma-related stimuli [18], [19]. From this perspective, one difference between substance abuse and PTSD is the emotional valence of the triggering stimulus, one being “positive” and eliciting approach, the other being “negative” and eliciting avoidance. It is possible that some individuals are prone to attribute excessive emotional and/or motivational significance to environmental cues regardless of valence, which could therefore make them more vulnerable to a number of different psychiatric disorders. We explore this idea here using preclinical animal models to estimate the emotional and/or motivational significance individual rats attribute to both an attractive food cue and to a fearful aversive cue.
Section snippets
Materials and methods
All procedures were approved by the University Committee on the Use and Care of Animals.
Exp. 1: Pavlovian conditioned approach
As described previously, rats varied in the topography of the conditioned response (CR) they acquired [7], [10]. Upon presentation of the lever-CS some rats (“sign-trackers”, STs) came to approach and contact the lever, whereas others came to approach and engage the food cup (“goal-trackers”, GTs), even though neither of these responses was necessary for receipt of the food reward. Based on an Approach Index that takes into account the probability and latency of each response type, 10 rats were
Discussion
We found that rats prone to attribute incentive salience to a reward (food) cue, as assessed by their tendency to approach it (i.e., STs), also tended to attribute greater emotional and/or motivational significance to a fear-provoking aversive cue, assessed by either conditioned freezing behavior or conditioned suppression of ongoing instrumental behavior. Variation in one trait accounted for between 11 and 16% of the variance in the other, depending on the measure of conditioned fear. In
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank Allison Gates for her technical assistance with the conditioned suppression experiment. This research was supported by NIH grants R37DA04294 to TER and grant R01MH065961 to SM.
References (39)
- et al.
Stimulus-induced eating when satiated
Physiol Behav
(1989) - et al.
The neuropharmacology of relapse to food seeking: methodology, main findings, and comparison with relapse to drug seeking
Prog Neurobiol
(2009) - et al.
A cognitive model of posttraumatic stress disorder
Behav Res Ther
(2000) - et al.
Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: implications for addiction
Neuropharmacology
(2009) - et al.
Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences
Biol Psychiatry
(2009) - et al.
A cocaine cue acts as an incentive stimulus in some but not others: implications for addiction
Biol Psychiatry
(2010) - et al.
Psychophysiological assessment: clinical applications for PTSD
J Affect Disord
(2000) - et al.
Response variation following trauma: a translational neuroscience approach to understanding PTSD
Neuron
(2007) - et al.
Psychophysiologic responsivity in posttraumatic stress disorder: generalized hyperresponsiveness versus trauma specificity
Biol Psychiatry
(1998) - et al.
What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?
Brain Res Brain Res Rev
(1998)
The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction
Brain Res Brain Res Rev
Mesolimbocortical and nigrostriatal dopamine responses to salient non-reward events
Neuroscience
Is the short-latency dopamine response too short to signal reward error?
Trends Neurosci
Dopamine in motivational control: rewarding, aversive, and alerting
Neuron
Individual differences in pavlovian autoshaping of lever pressing in rats predict stress-induced corticosterone release and mesolimbic levels of monoamines
Pharmacol Biochem Behav
Conditioned cues elicit feeding in sated rats: a role for learning in meal initiation
Science
Conditioning factors in drug abuse: can they explain compulsion?
J Psychopharmacol
Conditioned responses to cocaine-related stimuli in cocaine abuse patients
Psychopharmacology (Berl)
Sign-tracking: the stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action
Cited by (56)
Individual differences in learning positive affective value
2021, Current Opinion in Behavioral SciencesFrom sign-tracking to attentional bias: Implications for gambling and substance use disorders
2020, Progress in Neuro-Psychopharmacology and Biological PsychiatryMapping sign-tracking and goal-tracking onto human behaviors
2020, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsNeural circuits linking sleep and addiction: Animal models to understand why select individuals are more vulnerable to substance use disorders after sleep deprivation
2020, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsIndividual differences in voluntary alcohol consumption are associated with conditioned fear in the fear incubation model
2019, Behavioural Brain ResearchCitation Excerpt :Notably, conditioned fear after both a single training session of fear conditioning and the extended training fear incubation procedure exhibits individual differences that have an orderly association with another pair of phenotypes, the sign-tracking and goal-tracking rats (which differ in the form of their response to a cue that predicts food) [22,26]. With a single session of fear conditioning, sign-tracker rats (who predominately focus responding towards a cue predicting food) have been shown to exhibit higher fear to auditory cues paired with shocks than goal-tracker rats (who predominately ignore a food-predictive cue and approach the food delivery site during cue presentation) [26]. This higher conditioned fear in sign-tracker rats could parallel the higher conditioned fear observed during and after a single fear session in the non-HALF-FIELDER phenotype [12].
Incentive salience & psychopathy: A bio-behavioral exploration
2019, Personality and Individual DifferencesCitation Excerpt :Similar findings have been identified in sign-tracking rats. In a particularly clever study by Morrow, Maren, and Robinson (2011), all rats were forced to make a choice between approaching a reward and traversing an electrified floor to do so. They found that only goal-tracking rats were able to take peripheral cues into account and demonstrate the appropriate fear response of freezing (which is a common marker of fear in rats).