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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Fernando, A. B. P., Urcelay, G. P., Mar, A. C., Dickinson, A., Robbins, T. W.
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