Elsevier

Neuroscience

Volume 340, 6 January 2017, Pages 135-152
Neuroscience

A food-predictive cue attributed with incentive salience engages subcortical afferents and efferents of the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.10.043Get rights and content

Highlights

  • Goal-trackers attribute predictive value to reward-paired stimuli.

  • Sign-trackers attribute predictive and incentive value to reward-paired stimuli.

  • Incentive stimuli engage the subcortical hypothalamic–thalamic–striatal circuit.

  • Predictive stimuli engage cortical prelimbic cells projecting to midline thalamus.

  • The paraventricular thalamic nucleus is central to incentive motivational processes.

Abstract

The paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) has been implicated in behavioral responses to reward-associated cues. However, the precise role of the PVT in these behaviors has been difficult to ascertain since Pavlovian-conditioned cues can act as both predictive and incentive stimuli. The “sign-tracker/goal-tracker” rat model has allowed us to further elucidate the role of the PVT in cue-motivated behaviors, identifying this structure as a critical component of the neural circuitry underlying individual variation in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. The current study assessed differences in the engagement of specific PVT afferents and efferents in response to presentation of a food-cue that had been attributed with only predictive value or with both predictive and incentive value. The retrograde tracer fluorogold (FG) was injected into the PVT or the nucleus accumbens (NAc) of rats, and cue-induced c-Fos in FG-labeled cells was quantified. Presentation of a predictive stimulus that had been attributed with incentive value elicited c-Fos in PVT afferents from the lateral hypothalamus, medial amygdala (MeA), and the prelimbic cortex (PrL), as well as posterior PVT efferents to the NAc. PVT afferents from the PrL also showed elevated c-Fos levels following presentation of a predictive stimulus alone. Thus, presentation of an incentive stimulus results in engagement of subcortical brain regions; supporting a role for the hypothalamic–thalamic–striatal axis, as well as the MeA, in mediating responses to incentive stimuli; whereas activity in the PrL to PVT pathway appears to play a role in processing the predictive qualities of reward-paired stimuli.

Introduction

The paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) has recently been implicated in a variety of motivated behaviors (Hsu et al., 2014, Kirouac, 2015, Vertes et al., 2015), including reward-seeking behaviors (Martin-Fardon and Boutrel, 2012, James and Dayas, 2013, Haight and Flagel, 2014, Urstadt and Stanley, 2015). Much of the research surrounding the PVT and reward-seeking behaviors has focused on the role of the PVT in mediating responses to food- or drug-paired cues. For example, paired presentations of a discrete cue-light with a water reward leads to greater c-Fos induction in the PVT, relative to controls who received unpaired presentations of the cue and reward (Igelstrom et al., 2010). Enhanced levels of c-Fos are also found in the PVT in response to presentation of cocaine-paired cues (Matzeu et al., 2015a), as well as following cue-induced reinstatement of ethanol- and cocaine-seeking behavior (Wedzony et al., 2003, Dayas et al., 2008, James et al., 2011). In addition, transient inactivation of the PVT attenuates cue-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior (Matzeu et al., 2015b) and the expression of cocaine conditioned place preference (Browning et al., 2014). While these findings demonstrate that the PVT is involved in mediating cue-motivated behaviors, its specific role in these processes is less well known.

Identifying the neural mechanisms underlying cue-motivated behaviors has been complicated by the fact that Pavlovian-conditioned cues can act as both predictive and incentive stimuli (Robinson and Berridge, 1993). A predictive stimulus acquires predictive properties, and thereby the ability to elicit a conditioned response (CR); whereas an incentive stimulus acquires both predictive and incentive motivational properties and thereby the ability to evoke complex emotional and motivational states (Stewart et al., 1984, Childress et al., 1993). Incentive stimuli are defined by three fundamental properties: (1) they can elicit approach behaviors upon presentation, (2) they can act as conditioned reinforcers such that individuals are willing to work for presentation of the stimulus alone, and (3) their presentation can enhance ongoing instrumental actions (Berridge, 2001, Cardinal et al., 2002a). Initially, it was thought that if a cue was predictive of reward delivery (i.e. a predictive stimulus) it was also imbued with incentive properties. Upon further study, however, it was discovered that individuals differ in the extent to which they attribute incentive motivational value or incentive salience to reward-predictive stimuli (Flagel et al., 2009, Robinson and Flagel, 2009). To study this phenomenon, we use a Pavlovian conditioned approach (PCA) procedure that allows us to capture individual variation in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward-paired cues, and to thereby explore the underlying neural mechanisms. In this model, where presentation of a discrete lever-cue (conditioned stimulus, CS) is followed by presentation of a food reward (unconditioned stimulus, US), some rats develop a sign-tracking CR. These rats, referred to as “sign-trackers (STs)” (Hearst and Jenkins, 1974), approach and engage the lever-CS upon presentation, and will work for presentation of the lever-CS, even in the absence of a food reward (Robinson and Flagel, 2009). Other rats develop a goal-tracking CR, and these rats, referred to as “goal-trackers (GTs)” (Boakes, 1977), rapidly approach and enter the location of food delivery upon lever-CS presentation, and are less motivated than STs to work for lever presentation in the absence of food reward. The remaining rats develop a mixed CR, vacillating between engagement with the lever-CS and the location of food delivery. Thus, for all individuals, the lever-CS serves as a predictive stimulus, but only for STs does the lever-CS also become an incentive stimulus (Robinson and Flagel, 2009).

The ST/GT animal model has been used to show that cortico-thalamic-striatal circuitry is engaged only when a reward cue is attributed with incentive value—that is, to a greater extent in STs than GTs (Flagel et al., 2011a, Yager et al., 2015). The PVT seems to represent a central node of this differential activity, as there are robust phenotypic differences in food- and drug-cue induced c-Fos in this region, and distinct patterns of correlated neural activity involving the PVT. In STs, food-cue induced c-Fos mRNA is correlated between the PVT and the shell of the nucleus accumbens (NAc); whereas in GTs, cue-induced c-Fos mRNA is correlated between areas of the prefrontal cortex (PFC), such as the prelimbic cortex (PrL), and the PVT (Flagel et al., 2011b, Haight and Flagel, 2014). Additional evidence supporting a role for the PVT in mediating the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues comes from a lesion study in which we found that PVT lesions attenuate a goal-tracking CR, while concomitantly increasing a sign-tracking CR (Haight et al., 2015). These findings demonstrate a causal link between the PVT and the attribution of incentive salience to a reward cue, suggesting that the PVT may act as a “brake” on incentive salience attribution.

To better elucidate the role of the PVT in mediating the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues, it is crucial to examine the afferent and efferent circuitry of this nucleus. The PVT is situated on the dorsal midline of the thalamus in the rat, directly underneath the 3rd ventricle, and has numerous connections with cortical, limbic and motor areas. Specifically, the PVT receives dense cortical input from much of the anterior-posterior gradient of the PrL, as well as the infralimbic (IL) and cingulate cortices (Vertes, 2004, Li and Kirouac, 2012). Subcortical afferents are widely distributed, and arise from the hypothalamus, ventral subiculum (vSub), and the central and medial amygdala (MeA), among other areas (Chen and Su, 1990, Canteras et al., 1995, Van der Werf et al., 2002, Kirouac et al., 2005, Kirouac et al., 2006, Vogt et al., 2008, Hsu and Price, 2009, Li and Kirouac, 2012, Li et al., 2014, Lee et al., 2015). In addition to its diverse inputs, the PVT sends efferent fibers to a variety of cortical and subcortical structures, including the PrL and IL, NAc core and shell, parts of the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis, and the central and basolateral amygdala, among other areas (Jones et al., 1989, Berendse and Groenewegen, 1990, Su and Bentivoglio, 1990, Moga et al., 1995, Van der Werf et al., 2002, Pinto et al., 2003, Parsons et al., 2006, Parsons et al., 2007, Li and Kirouac, 2008, Vertes and Hoover, 2008). Importantly, several of the sources of afferents, as well as the efferent targets, of the PVT have been implicated in cue- and context-motivated behaviors, including the PrL and IL (Willcocks and McNally, 2013, Moorman and Aston-Jones, 2015), hypothalamus (Petrovich et al., 2012, Cole et al., 2015), amygdala (Parkinson et al., 2000, Mahler and Berridge, 2009), vSub (Sun and Rebec, 2003, Kufahl et al., 2009), and NAc (Cardinal et al., 2002b, Bossert et al., 2007).

The neuroanatomical location of the PVT allows it to integrate cortical and subcortical inputs and send this information to the NAc to control motivated behavior (Kelley et al., 2005b). We postulate that the PVT acts as a central node to modulate the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues, with STs being more susceptible to subcortical motivational processes and GTs being biased toward greater cortical control of behavior (Haight and Flagel, 2014). Specifically, given that GTs perform better than STs on behavioral tests dependent on cortical processes, including sustained attention (Paolone et al., 2013) and impulsive action (Flagel et al., 2010, Lovic et al., 2011), we hypothesize that, following presentation of a reward-predictive cue, these rats will show greater activation of PrL afferents to the PVT, representing greater top-down control of behavior. In contrast, we hypothesize that STs will show greater cue-induced activation of subcortical inputs to the PVT, including those from the hypothalamus, amygdala, and vSub. In addition, we expect greater activation of PVT efferents to the NAc in STs, as the sign-tracking, but not the goal-tracking, response has been shown to be dependent on dopamine transmission in the NAc (Flagel et al., 2011b, Saunders and Robinson, 2012), which can be influenced by projections from the PVT (Parsons et al., 2006). These hypotheses were examined by assessing engagement of specific PVT afferent and efferent circuits in response to presentation of a predictive (i.e. for STs and GTs) or incentive (i.e. for STs only) stimulus associated with a food reward.

Section snippets

Experimental procedures

All experiments were conducted in accordance with the National Institute of Health Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals: Eighth Edition, revised in 2011. In addition, all procedures were approved by the University of Michigan Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.

PCA behavior

Similar to previous reports (Flagel et al., 2009, Meyer et al., 2012, Haight et al., 2015), considerable variation was seen in the CRs acquired by individual rats following five sessions of PCA training. Some rats directed their behavior toward the lever-CS, and were classified as STs (n = 15; PCA Index range +0.3 to +0.93), while others directed their behavior toward the location of US delivery upon lever-CS presentation, and were classified as GTs (n = 12; PCA Index range −0.34 to −0.91). In

Discussion

The current study measured c-Fos expression in specific PVT afferent and efferent neuronal populations in response to presentation of a predictive and incentive stimulus (in STs), or a predictive-only stimulus (in GTs). This was accomplished using a combination of retrograde tracing and immunohistochemical analyses in a rat model that captures individual variation in PCA behavior. Results indicate that presentation of a reward-predictive stimulus increases activation of PrL cells that project

Conclusion

The current data lend further support to the theory that a hypothalamic–thalamic–striatal axis underlies cue-motivated behavior, by showing that presentation of an incentive stimulus elicits activity specifically in the dorsomedial/lateral hypothalamic-PVT-NAc circuit. In addition, inputs from the MeA likely contribute to the neural circuitry underlying these behaviors. Last, it seems that the PrL to PVT circuit is activated by the predictive, but not the incentive, qualities of a CS. Since the

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge Dr. Terry Robinson for commenting on a previous version of this manuscript, and Dr. Brady West from the Consulting for Statistics, Computing and Analytics Research team at The University of Michigan for his helpful input on statistical modeling of the data. JLH and SBF designed the experiments. JLH, ZLF and KMF conducted the experiments and collected data. JLH and ZLF analyzed the data. JLH, ZLF and SBF wrote the paper. This work was supported by the

References (89)

  • C.V. Dayas et al.

    Stimuli linked to ethanol availability activate hypothalamic CART and orexin neurons in a reinstatement model of relapse

    Biol Psychiat

    (2008)
  • S.B. Flagel et al.

    Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: Implications for addiction

    Neuropharmacology

    (2009)
  • S.B. Flagel et al.

    A food predictive cue must be attributed with incentive salience for it to induce c-fos mRNA expression in cortico-striatal-thalamic brain regions

    Neuroscience

    (2011)
  • K.M. Fraser et al.

    Examining the role of dopamine D2 and D3 receptors in Pavlovian conditioned approach behaviors

    Behav Brain Res

    (2016)
  • K.M. Igelstrom et al.

    Enhanced c-Fos expression in superior colliculus, paraventricular thalamus and septum during learning of cue-reward association

    Neuroscience

    (2010)
  • M.H. James et al.

    Propensity to ‘relapse’ following exposure to cocaine cues is associated with the recruitment of specific thalamic and epithalamic nuclei

    Neuroscience

    (2011)
  • A. Kelley et al.

    Corticostriatal-hypothalamic circuitry and food motivation: integration of energy, action and reward

    Physiol Behav

    (2005)
  • G.J. Kirouac

    Placing the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus within the brain circuits that control behavior

    Neurosci Biobehav Rev

    (2015)
  • G.J. Kirouac et al.

    Orexin (hypocretin) innervation of the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus

    Brain Res

    (2005)
  • J.S. Lee et al.

    Hypothalamic, feeding/arousal-related peptidergic projections to the paraventricular thalamic nucleus in the rat

    Brain Res

    (2015)
  • V. Lovic et al.

    Rats prone to attribute incentive salience to reward cues are also prone to impulsive action

    Behav Brain Res

    (2011)
  • S.V. Mahler et al.

    Multiple roles for orexin/hypocretin in addiction

    Prog Brain Res

    (2012)
  • A. Matzeu et al.

    Transient inactivation of the posterior paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus blocks cocaine-seeking behavior

    Neurosci Lett

    (2015)
  • J.D. Morrow et al.

    Individual variation in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to an appetitive cue predicts the propensity to attribute motivational salience to an aversive cue

    Behav Brain Res

    (2011)
  • G.D. Petrovich et al.

    Selective Fos induction in hypothalamic orexin/hypocretin, but not melanin-concentrating hormone neurons, by a learned food-cue that stimulates feeding in sated rats

    Neuroscience

    (2012)
  • T.E. Robinson et al.

    The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction

    Brain Res Rev

    (1993)
  • T.E. Robinson et al.

    Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences

    Biol Psychiatry

    (2009)
  • Y.D. Van der Werf et al.

    The intralaminar and midline nuclei of the thalamus. Anatomical and functional evidence for participation in processes of arousal and awareness

    Brain Res Rev

    (2002)
  • R.P. Vertes et al.

    Limbic circuitry of the midline thalamus

    Neurosci Biobehav Rev

    (2015)
  • P.M. Baker et al.

    Contralateral disconnection of the rat prelimbic cortex and dorsomedial striatum impairs cue-guided behavioral switching

    Learn Mem

    (2014)
  • H.W. Berendse et al.

    Organization of the thalamostriatal projections in the rat, with special emphasis on the ventral striatum

    J Comp Neurol

    (1990)
  • K.C. Berridge

    Reward learning: Reinforcement, incentives, and expectations

  • R.A. Boakes

    Performance on learning to associate a stimulus with positive reinforcement

  • J.M. Bossert et al.

    Differential effects of blockade of dopamine D1-family receptors in nucleus accumbens core or shell on reinstatement of heroin seeking induced by contextual and discrete cues

    J Neurosci

    (2007)
  • N.S. Canteras et al.

    Organization of projections from the medial nucleus of the amygdala: A PHAL study in the rat

    J Comp Neurol

    (1995)
  • R.N. Cardinal et al.

    Effects of selective excitotoxic lesions of the nucleus accumbens core, anterior cingulate cortex, and central nucleus of the amygdala on autoshaping performance in rats

    Behav Neurosci

    (2002)
  • A.R. Childress et al.

    Cue reactivity and cue reactivity interventions in drug dependence

    NIDA Res Monogr

    (1993)
  • F.C. Cruz et al.

    New technologies for examining the role of neuronal ensembles in drug addiction and fear

    Nat Rev Neurosci

    (2013)
  • S.B. Flagel et al.

    A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning

    Nature

    (2011)
  • S.B. Flagel et al.

    An animal model of genetic vulnerability to behavioral disinhibition and responsiveness to reward-related cues: implications for addiction

    Neuropsychopharmacology

    (2010)
  • P.L.A. Gabbott et al.

    Prefrontal cortex in the rat: Projections to subcortical autonomic, motor, and limbic centers

    J Comp Neurol

    (2005)
  • Y. Guo et al.

    How is mRNA expression predictive for protein expression? A correlation study on human circulating monocytes

    Acta Biochim Biophys Sin (Shanghai)

    (2008)
  • J.L. Haight et al.

    A potential role for the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus in mediating individual variation in Pavlovian conditioned responses

    Front Behav Neurosci

    (2014)
  • J.L. Haight et al.

    Lesions of the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus differentially affect sign- and goal-tracking conditioned responses

    Eur J Neurosci

    (2015)
  • Cited by (40)

    • A bioinspired model to motivate learning of appetitive signals’ incentive value under a Pavlovian conditioning approach

      2022, Neurocomputing
      Citation Excerpt :

      Anatomically, the THA is divided into: Paraventricular Thalamus (PVT) is a site where different hypothalamic inputs converge, promoting motivational drives to prioritize cortical processing [82] and playing a role in both context- and cue-motivated behaviors [96,65]. This structure has connections to the VS, BLA, and IC [96,65,66,82].

    • Motivational competition and the paraventricular thalamus

      2021, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews
      Citation Excerpt :

      Under these conditions, PVT, and PL inputs to PVT, suppress approach to the lever (sign tracking) enabling approach to the magazine (goal tracking) (Campus et al., 2019; Haight et al., 2015). Flagel (Flagel et al., 2011; Haight and Flagel, 2014; Haight et al., 2017) has hypothesized that the opposite would be observed for hypothalamic inputs to PVT (i.e. these enable sign-tracking over goal tracking). A second example comes from discriminative Pavlovian appetitive conditioning.

    View all citing articles on Scopus
    View full text