Cargando…
Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics
RATIONALE: Safety signals providing relief are hypothesised to possess conditioned reinforcing properties, supporting the acquisition of a new response (AnR) as seen with appetitive stimuli. Such responding should also be sensitive to the rate-increasing effects of d-amphetamine and to the anxiolyti...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Springer-Verlag
2013
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636441/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23299096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2952-1 |
_version_ | 1782267331604381696 |
---|---|
author | Fernando, A. B. P. Urcelay, G. P. Mar, A. C. Dickinson, A. Robbins, T. W. |
author_facet | Fernando, A. B. P. Urcelay, G. P. Mar, A. C. Dickinson, A. Robbins, T. W. |
author_sort | Fernando, A. B. P. |
collection | PubMed |
description | RATIONALE: Safety signals providing relief are hypothesised to possess conditioned reinforcing properties, supporting the acquisition of a new response (AnR) as seen with appetitive stimuli. Such responding should also be sensitive to the rate-increasing effects of d-amphetamine and to the anxiolytics 8-OH-DPAT and diazepam. OBJECTIVES: This study tests whether safety signals have conditioned reinforcing properties similar to those of stimuli-predicting reward. METHODS: Rats received Pavlovian conditioning with either appetitive stimuli (CS+) or safety signals (conditioned inhibitors, CIs) plus truly random control (TRC) stimuli. The appetitive group received a CS + paired with a sucrose pellet and the safety signal group, a stimulus paired with shock omission. Stimuli were tested using an AnR procedure and following systemic d-amphetamine, the 5HT-1A agonist 8-OH-DPAT and the benzodiazepine diazepam in a counterbalanced design. RESULTS: Effective conditioning selectively reduced contextual freezing during CI presentation in the safety signal group and increased food magazine responses (with respect to context and TRC) during CS + presentation in the appetitive group. The appetitive stimulus strongly supported AnR but the safety signal did not. Systemic d-amphetamine significantly potentiated lever pressing in the appetitive group but for the safety signal group, it either reduced it or had no effect, dependent on food deprivation state. 8-OH-DPAT and diazepam had no effect on responding in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The safety signal did not support AnR and, therefore, did not exhibit conditioned reinforcing properties. Furthermore, d-amphetamine decreased responding when the safety signal was presented as a consequence, whilst increasing responding with appetitive-conditioned reinforcement. These results are discussed in terms of implications for opponent motivational theory. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-3636441 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2013 |
publisher | Springer-Verlag |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-36364412013-04-29 Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics Fernando, A. B. P. Urcelay, G. P. Mar, A. C. Dickinson, A. Robbins, T. W. Psychopharmacology (Berl) Original Investigation RATIONALE: Safety signals providing relief are hypothesised to possess conditioned reinforcing properties, supporting the acquisition of a new response (AnR) as seen with appetitive stimuli. Such responding should also be sensitive to the rate-increasing effects of d-amphetamine and to the anxiolytics 8-OH-DPAT and diazepam. OBJECTIVES: This study tests whether safety signals have conditioned reinforcing properties similar to those of stimuli-predicting reward. METHODS: Rats received Pavlovian conditioning with either appetitive stimuli (CS+) or safety signals (conditioned inhibitors, CIs) plus truly random control (TRC) stimuli. The appetitive group received a CS + paired with a sucrose pellet and the safety signal group, a stimulus paired with shock omission. Stimuli were tested using an AnR procedure and following systemic d-amphetamine, the 5HT-1A agonist 8-OH-DPAT and the benzodiazepine diazepam in a counterbalanced design. RESULTS: Effective conditioning selectively reduced contextual freezing during CI presentation in the safety signal group and increased food magazine responses (with respect to context and TRC) during CS + presentation in the appetitive group. The appetitive stimulus strongly supported AnR but the safety signal did not. Systemic d-amphetamine significantly potentiated lever pressing in the appetitive group but for the safety signal group, it either reduced it or had no effect, dependent on food deprivation state. 8-OH-DPAT and diazepam had no effect on responding in either group. CONCLUSIONS: The safety signal did not support AnR and, therefore, did not exhibit conditioned reinforcing properties. Furthermore, d-amphetamine decreased responding when the safety signal was presented as a consequence, whilst increasing responding with appetitive-conditioned reinforcement. These results are discussed in terms of implications for opponent motivational theory. Springer-Verlag 2013-01-09 2013 /pmc/articles/PMC3636441/ /pubmed/23299096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2952-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2012 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/2.0/ Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License which permits any use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited. |
spellingShingle | Original Investigation Fernando, A. B. P. Urcelay, G. P. Mar, A. C. Dickinson, A. Robbins, T. W. Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
title | Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
title_full | Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
title_fullStr | Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
title_full_unstemmed | Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
title_short | Comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
title_sort | comparison of the conditioned reinforcing properties of a safety signal and appetitive stimulus: effects of d-amphetamine and anxiolytics |
topic | Original Investigation |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3636441/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23299096 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-012-2952-1 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT fernandoabp comparisonoftheconditionedreinforcingpropertiesofasafetysignalandappetitivestimuluseffectsofdamphetamineandanxiolytics AT urcelaygp comparisonoftheconditionedreinforcingpropertiesofasafetysignalandappetitivestimuluseffectsofdamphetamineandanxiolytics AT marac comparisonoftheconditionedreinforcingpropertiesofasafetysignalandappetitivestimuluseffectsofdamphetamineandanxiolytics AT dickinsona comparisonoftheconditionedreinforcingpropertiesofasafetysignalandappetitivestimuluseffectsofdamphetamineandanxiolytics AT robbinstw comparisonoftheconditionedreinforcingpropertiesofasafetysignalandappetitivestimuluseffectsofdamphetamineandanxiolytics |