Nicholas W Simon1, Ian A Mendez, Barry Setlow. 1. Department of Psychology, Behavioral and Cellular Neuroscience Program, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843-4235, USA.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Pavlovian conditioning with a discrete reward-predictive visual cue can elicit two classes of behaviors: "sign-tracking" (approach toward and contact with the cue) and "goal-tracking" (approach toward the site of reward delivery). Sign-tracking has been proposed to be linked to behavioral disorders involving compulsive reward-seeking, such as addiction. Prior exposure to psychostimulant drugs of abuse can facilitate reward-seeking behaviors through enhancements in incentive salience attribution. Thus, it was predicted that a sensitizing regimen of amphetamine exposure would increase sign-tracking behavior. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of these experiments was to determine how a regimen of exposure to amphetamine affects subsequent sign-tracking behavior. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male Long-Evans rats were given daily injections of d-amphetamine (2.0 mg/kg) or saline for 5 days, then given a 7-day drug-free period followed by testing in a Pavlovian conditioning task. In experiment 1, rats were presented with a visual cue (simultaneous illumination of a light and extension of a lever) located either to the left or right of a centrally located food trough. One cue (CS+) was always followed by food delivery, whereas the other (CS-) was not. In experiment 2, rats were tested in a nondiscriminative (CS+ only) version of the task. RESULTS: In both experiments, amphetamine-exposed rats showed less sign-tracking and more goal-tracking compared to saline controls. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to predictions, prior amphetamine exposure decreased sign-tracking and increased goal-tracking behavior. However, these results do support the hypothesis that psychostimulant exposure and incentive sensitization enhance behavior directed toward reward-proximal cues at the expense of reward-distal cues.
RATIONALE: Pavlovian conditioning with a discrete reward-predictive visual cue can elicit two classes of behaviors: "sign-tracking" (approach toward and contact with the cue) and "goal-tracking" (approach toward the site of reward delivery). Sign-tracking has been proposed to be linked to behavioral disorders involving compulsive reward-seeking, such as addiction. Prior exposure to psychostimulant drugs of abuse can facilitate reward-seeking behaviors through enhancements in incentive salience attribution. Thus, it was predicted that a sensitizing regimen of amphetamine exposure would increase sign-tracking behavior. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of these experiments was to determine how a regimen of exposure to amphetamine affects subsequent sign-tracking behavior. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Male Long-Evans rats were given daily injections of d-amphetamine (2.0 mg/kg) or saline for 5 days, then given a 7-day drug-free period followed by testing in a Pavlovian conditioning task. In experiment 1, rats were presented with a visual cue (simultaneous illumination of a light and extension of a lever) located either to the left or right of a centrally located food trough. One cue (CS+) was always followed by food delivery, whereas the other (CS-) was not. In experiment 2, rats were tested in a nondiscriminative (CS+ only) version of the task. RESULTS: In both experiments, amphetamine-exposed rats showed less sign-tracking and more goal-tracking compared to saline controls. CONCLUSIONS: Contrary to predictions, prior amphetamine exposure decreased sign-tracking and increased goal-tracking behavior. However, these results do support the hypothesis that psychostimulant exposure and incentive sensitization enhance behavior directed toward reward-proximal cues at the expense of reward-distal cues.
Authors: Shkelzen Shabani; Lauren K Dobbs; Matthew M Ford; Gregory P Mark; Deborah A Finn; Tamara J Phillips Journal: Neuropharmacology Date: 2012-01-20 Impact factor: 5.250
Authors: Price E Dickson; Kathryn A McNaughton; Lingfeng Hou; Laura C Anderson; Katie H Long; Elissa J Chesler Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2015-06-20 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Christopher J Fitzpatrick; Lakshmikripa Jagannathan; Elijah D Lowenstein; Terry E Robinson; Jill B Becker; Jonathan D Morrow Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2018-08-02 Impact factor: 3.332