Cargando…
Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release
Recent computational models of sign tracking (ST) and goal tracking (GT) have accounted for observations that dopamine (DA) is not necessary for all forms of learning and have provided a set of predictions to further their validity. Among these, a central prediction is that manipulating the intertri...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
Public Library of Science
2018
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30256785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004015 |
_version_ | 1783361535495634944 |
---|---|
author | Lee, Brian Gentry, Ronny N. Bissonette, Gregory B. Herman, Rae J. Mallon, John J. Bryden, Daniel W. Calu, Donna J. Schoenbaum, Geoffrey Coutureau, Etienne Marchand, Alain R. Khamassi, Mehdi Roesch, Matthew R. |
author_facet | Lee, Brian Gentry, Ronny N. Bissonette, Gregory B. Herman, Rae J. Mallon, John J. Bryden, Daniel W. Calu, Donna J. Schoenbaum, Geoffrey Coutureau, Etienne Marchand, Alain R. Khamassi, Mehdi Roesch, Matthew R. |
author_sort | Lee, Brian |
collection | PubMed |
description | Recent computational models of sign tracking (ST) and goal tracking (GT) have accounted for observations that dopamine (DA) is not necessary for all forms of learning and have provided a set of predictions to further their validity. Among these, a central prediction is that manipulating the intertrial interval (ITI) during autoshaping should change the relative ST-GT proportion as well as DA phasic responses. Here, we tested these predictions and found that lengthening the ITI increased ST, i.e., behavioral engagement with conditioned stimuli (CS) and cue-induced phasic DA release. Importantly, DA release was also present at the time of reward delivery, even after learning, and DA release was correlated with time spent in the food cup during the ITI. During conditioning with shorter ITIs, GT was prominent (i.e., engagement with food cup), and DA release responded to the CS while being absent at the time of reward delivery after learning. Hence, shorter ITIs restored the classical DA reward prediction error (RPE) pattern. These results validate the computational hypotheses, opening new perspectives on the understanding of individual differences in Pavlovian conditioning and DA signaling. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-6175531 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2018 |
publisher | Public Library of Science |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-61755312018-10-19 Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release Lee, Brian Gentry, Ronny N. Bissonette, Gregory B. Herman, Rae J. Mallon, John J. Bryden, Daniel W. Calu, Donna J. Schoenbaum, Geoffrey Coutureau, Etienne Marchand, Alain R. Khamassi, Mehdi Roesch, Matthew R. PLoS Biol Short Reports Recent computational models of sign tracking (ST) and goal tracking (GT) have accounted for observations that dopamine (DA) is not necessary for all forms of learning and have provided a set of predictions to further their validity. Among these, a central prediction is that manipulating the intertrial interval (ITI) during autoshaping should change the relative ST-GT proportion as well as DA phasic responses. Here, we tested these predictions and found that lengthening the ITI increased ST, i.e., behavioral engagement with conditioned stimuli (CS) and cue-induced phasic DA release. Importantly, DA release was also present at the time of reward delivery, even after learning, and DA release was correlated with time spent in the food cup during the ITI. During conditioning with shorter ITIs, GT was prominent (i.e., engagement with food cup), and DA release responded to the CS while being absent at the time of reward delivery after learning. Hence, shorter ITIs restored the classical DA reward prediction error (RPE) pattern. These results validate the computational hypotheses, opening new perspectives on the understanding of individual differences in Pavlovian conditioning and DA signaling. Public Library of Science 2018-09-26 /pmc/articles/PMC6175531/ /pubmed/30256785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004015 Text en https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ This is an open access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) public domain dedication. |
spellingShingle | Short Reports Lee, Brian Gentry, Ronny N. Bissonette, Gregory B. Herman, Rae J. Mallon, John J. Bryden, Daniel W. Calu, Donna J. Schoenbaum, Geoffrey Coutureau, Etienne Marchand, Alain R. Khamassi, Mehdi Roesch, Matthew R. Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
title | Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
title_full | Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
title_fullStr | Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
title_full_unstemmed | Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
title_short | Manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
title_sort | manipulating the revision of reward value during the intertrial interval increases sign tracking and dopamine release |
topic | Short Reports |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6175531/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30256785 http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pbio.2004015 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT leebrian manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT gentryronnyn manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT bissonettegregoryb manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT hermanraej manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT mallonjohnj manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT brydendanielw manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT caludonnaj manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT schoenbaumgeoffrey manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT coutureauetienne manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT marchandalainr manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT khamassimehdi manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease AT roeschmatthewr manipulatingtherevisionofrewardvalueduringtheintertrialintervalincreasessigntrackinganddopaminerelease |