Flexible control of Pavlovian-instrumental transfer based on expected reward value.

Andrew T Marshall, Briac Halbout, Christy N Munson, Collin Hutson, Sean B Ostlund
Author Information
  1. Andrew T Marshall: Children's Hospital Los Angeles, Department of Pediatrics, University of Southern California.
  2. Briac Halbout: Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Irvine Center for Addiction Neuroscience (ICAN), Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (CNLM), Center for Neural Circuit Mapping (CNCM), University of California Irvine School of Medicine.
  3. Christy N Munson: Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Irvine Center for Addiction Neuroscience (ICAN), Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (CNLM), Center for Neural Circuit Mapping (CNCM), University of California Irvine School of Medicine.
  4. Collin Hutson: Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Irvine Center for Addiction Neuroscience (ICAN), Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (CNLM), Center for Neural Circuit Mapping (CNCM), University of California Irvine School of Medicine.
  5. Sean B Ostlund: Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Care, Department of Neurobiology and Behavior, Irvine Center for Addiction Neuroscience (ICAN), Center for the Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (CNLM), Center for Neural Circuit Mapping (CNCM), University of California Irvine School of Medicine. ORCID

Abstract

The Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) paradigm is widely used to assay the motivational influence of reward-predictive cues, reflected by their ability to invigorate instrumental behavior. Leading theories assume that a cue's motivational properties are tied to predicted reward value. We outline an alternative view that recognizes that reward-predictive cues may suppress rather than motivate instrumental behavior under certain conditions, an effect termed positive conditioned suppression. We posit that cues signaling imminent reward delivery tend to inhibit instrumental behavior, which is exploratory by nature, in order to facilitate efficient retrieval of the expected reward. According to this view, the motivation to engage in instrumental behavior during a cue should be inversely related to the value of the predicted reward, since there is more to lose by failing to secure a high-value reward than a low-value reward. We tested this hypothesis in rats using a PIT protocol known to induce positive conditioned suppression. In Experiment 1, cues signaling different reward magnitudes elicited distinct response patterns. Whereas the one-pellet cue increased instrumental behavior, cues signaling three or nine pellets suppressed instrumental behavior and elicited high levels of food-port activity. Experiment 2 found that reward-predictive cues suppressed instrumental behavior and increased food-port activity in a flexible manner that was disrupted by post-training reward devaluation. Further analyses suggest that these findings were not driven by overt competition between the instrumental and food-port responses. We discuss how the PIT task may provide a useful tool for studying cognitive control over cue-motivated behavior in rodents. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

References

  1. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 1976;36(3):277-310 [PMID: 970240]
  2. Prog Neuropsychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry. 2020 Apr 20;99:109861 [PMID: 31931091]
  3. J Exp Anal Behav. 1973 Nov;20(3):363-73 [PMID: 16811711]
  4. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013 Nov;230(1):137-47 [PMID: 23715640]
  5. Behav Brain Res. 2013 Feb 1;238:53-61 [PMID: 23078951]
  6. Acta Biol Exp (Warsz). 1965;25(4):297-315 [PMID: 5887966]
  7. Learn Mem. 2018 Sep 17;25(10):550-563 [PMID: 30224558]
  8. Addict Biol. 2016 May;21(3):719-31 [PMID: 25828702]
  9. Int J Neuropsychopharmacol. 2022 Mar 17;25(3):173-184 [PMID: 35043951]
  10. Neuropharmacology. 2009;56 Suppl 1:139-48 [PMID: 18619474]
  11. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1982 Jan;8(1):62-85 [PMID: 7057145]
  12. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 30;8(4):e61355 [PMID: 23646106]
  13. Eur J Neurosci. 2011 Jun;33(12):2274-87 [PMID: 21507084]
  14. J Exp Anal Behav. 1971 Mar;15(2):243-7 [PMID: 16811509]
  15. J Neurosci. 2001 Oct 1;21(19):7831-40 [PMID: 11567074]
  16. Front Behav Neurosci. 2022 Nov 09;16:983480 [PMID: 36439968]
  17. Learn Mem. 2018 Aug 16;25(9):399-409 [PMID: 30115761]
  18. Addict Biol. 2014 Nov;19(6):965-71 [PMID: 23639056]
  19. J Comp Physiol Psychol. 1971 Oct;77(1):131-5 [PMID: 5120676]
  20. Behav Neurosci. 2000 Jun;114(3):468-83 [PMID: 10883798]
  21. J Psychopharmacol. 2021 May;35(5):566-578 [PMID: 33726538]
  22. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1983 Jul;9(3):225-47 [PMID: 6153052]
  23. Curr Top Behav Neurosci. 2016;27:259-89 [PMID: 26695169]
  24. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2008 Apr;34(2):202-22 [PMID: 18426304]
  25. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010 Jul;34(8):1277-95 [PMID: 20385164]
  26. Annu Rev Psychol. 2015 Jan 3;66:83-113 [PMID: 25251491]
  27. PLoS One. 2012;7(10):e48227 [PMID: 23144742]
  28. Trends Cogn Sci. 2012 Feb;16(2):106-13 [PMID: 22245618]
  29. Trends Neurosci. 2003 Aug;26(8):423-8 [PMID: 12900173]
  30. Front Behav Neurosci. 2022 Apr 15;16:877720 [PMID: 35493952]
  31. Learn Mem. 2020 Mar 16;27(4):136-149 [PMID: 32179656]
  32. Behav Neurosci. 2012 Oct;126(5):681-9 [PMID: 22866668]
  33. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 May;1104:1-20 [PMID: 17344542]
  34. Front Psychiatry. 2016 Oct 10;7:169 [PMID: 27777560]
  35. Learn Mem. 2017 Dec 15;25(1):8-20 [PMID: 29246977]
  36. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Sep;68:1004-1005 [PMID: 27241200]
  37. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2020 Mar;169:107163 [PMID: 31927082]
  38. Behav Brain Res. 2018 Jul 16;347:8-16 [PMID: 29522786]
  39. Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2012 Oct;223(3):361-70 [PMID: 22562522]
  40. Psychol Rev. 1967 May;74(3):151-82 [PMID: 5342881]
  41. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2016 Dec;71:829-848 [PMID: 27693227]
  42. Behav Neurosci. 2018 Feb;132(1):1-12 [PMID: 29355335]
  43. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012 Jan;37(2):508-19 [PMID: 21918507]
  44. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2001;24:167-202 [PMID: 11283309]
  45. Front Behav Neurosci. 2020 Feb 04;14:3 [PMID: 32116587]
  46. J Exp Psychol Anim Learn Cogn. 2016 Oct;42(4):313-324 [PMID: 27732045]
  47. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1979 Jan;5(1):65-78 [PMID: 528879]
  48. Elife. 2019 May 20;8: [PMID: 31107241]
  49. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2007 May;1104:147-71 [PMID: 17360797]
  50. Addict Biol. 2020 Nov;25(6):e12841 [PMID: 31713984]
  51. Trends Ecol Evol. 2009 Mar;24(3):127-35 [PMID: 19185386]
  52. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1990 Jan;16(1):40-7 [PMID: 2303793]
  53. Behav Res Methods. 2007 Feb;39(1):101-17 [PMID: 17552476]
  54. Learn Mem. 2008 Apr 25;15(5):299-303 [PMID: 18441288]
  55. J Exp Psychol. 1948 Apr;38(2):173-7 [PMID: 18913666]
  56. Neuron. 2002 Oct 10;36(2):285-98 [PMID: 12383782]
  57. Alcohol Clin Exp Res. 2007 May;31(5):766-74 [PMID: 17378919]
  58. Dev Cogn Neurosci. 2020 Oct;45:100838 [PMID: 32846387]
  59. J Exp Anal Behav. 1969 Jan;12(1):167-73 [PMID: 16811337]
  60. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 2004 Apr;30(2):104-17 [PMID: 15078120]
  61. Q J Exp Psychol B. 1981 Nov;33(Pt 4):257-69 [PMID: 7198814]
  62. Q J Exp Psychol B. 1992 Nov;45(4):285-301 [PMID: 1475401]
  63. PLoS Comput Biol. 2009 Jul;5(7):e1000437 [PMID: 19609350]
  64. Front Neurosci. 2015 Dec 16;9:468 [PMID: 26733783]
  65. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2014 Sep;39(10):2441-9 [PMID: 24804846]

Grants

  1. F32 MH012685/NIMH NIH HHS
  2. R21 DA050116/NIDA NIH HHS
  3. T32 DA024635/NIDA NIH HHS
  4. R21 DA046667/NIDA NIH HHS
  5. /NIH HHS
  6. R01 MH126285/NIMH NIH HHS
  7. R01 MH106972/NIMH NIH HHS

MeSH Term

Rats
Animals
Food
Motivation
Reward
Cues
Conditioning, Classical
Conditioning, Operant

Word Cloud

Created with Highcharts 10.0.0rewardinstrumentalbehaviorcuesPITreward-predictivevaluesignalingfood-portPavlovian-instrumentaltransfermotivationalpredictedviewmaypositiveconditionedsuppressionexpectedcueExperimentelicitedincreasedsuppressedactivitycontrolparadigmwidelyusedassayinfluencereflectedabilityinvigorateLeadingtheoriesassumecue'spropertiestiedoutlinealternativerecognizessuppressrathermotivatecertainconditionseffecttermedpositimminentdeliverytendinhibitexploratorynatureorderfacilitateefficientretrievalAccordingmotivationengageinverselyrelatedsincelosefailingsecurehigh-valuelow-valuetestedhypothesisratsusingprotocolknowninduce1differentmagnitudesdistinctresponsepatternsWhereasone-pelletthreeninepelletshighlevels2foundflexiblemannerdisruptedpost-trainingdevaluationanalysessuggestfindingsdrivenovertcompetitionresponsesdiscusstaskprovideusefultoolstudyingcognitivecue-motivatedrodentsPsycInfoDatabaseRecordc2023APArightsreservedFlexiblebased

Similar Articles

Cited By