Alicia Izquierdo1, J David Jentsch. 1. Department of Psychology, California State University, Los Angeles, 5151 State University Drive, Los Angeles, CA 90032, USA. aizquie@calstatela.edu
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Our ability to measure the cognitive components of complex decision-making across species has greatly facilitated our understanding of its neurobiological mechanisms. One task in particular, reversal learning, has proven valuable in assessing the inhibitory processes that are central to executive control. Reversal learning measures the ability to actively suppress reward-related responding and to disengage from ongoing behavior, phenomena that are biologically and descriptively related to impulsivity and compulsivity. Consequently, reversal learning could index vulnerability for disorders characterized by impulsivity such as proclivity for initial substance abuse as well as the compulsive aspects of dependence. OBJECTIVE: Though we describe common variants and similar tasks, we pay particular attention to discrimination reversal learning, its supporting neural circuitry, neuropharmacology and genetic determinants. We also review the utility of this task in measuring impulsivity and compulsivity in addictions. METHODS: We restrict our review to instrumental, reward-related reversal learning studies as they are most germane to addiction. CONCLUSION: The research reviewed here suggests that discrimination reversal learning may be used as a diagnostic tool for investigating the neural mechanisms that mediate impulsive and compulsive aspects of pathological reward-seeking and -taking behaviors. Two interrelated mechanisms are posited for the neuroadaptations in addiction that often translate to poor reversal learning: frontocorticostriatal circuitry dysregulation and poor dopamine (D2 receptor) modulation of this circuitry. These data suggest new approaches to targeting inhibitory control mechanisms in addictions.
BACKGROUND: Our ability to measure the cognitive components of complex decision-making across species has greatly facilitated our understanding of its neurobiological mechanisms. One task in particular, reversal learning, has proven valuable in assessing the inhibitory processes that are central to executive control. Reversal learning measures the ability to actively suppress reward-related responding and to disengage from ongoing behavior, phenomena that are biologically and descriptively related to impulsivity and compulsivity. Consequently, reversal learning could index vulnerability for disorders characterized by impulsivity such as proclivity for initial substance abuse as well as the compulsive aspects of dependence. OBJECTIVE: Though we describe common variants and similar tasks, we pay particular attention to discrimination reversal learning, its supporting neural circuitry, neuropharmacology and genetic determinants. We also review the utility of this task in measuring impulsivity and compulsivity in addictions. METHODS: We restrict our review to instrumental, reward-related reversal learning studies as they are most germane to addiction. CONCLUSION: The research reviewed here suggests that discrimination reversal learning may be used as a diagnostic tool for investigating the neural mechanisms that mediate impulsive and compulsive aspects of pathological reward-seeking and -taking behaviors. Two interrelated mechanisms are posited for the neuroadaptations in addiction that often translate to poor reversal learning: frontocorticostriatal circuitry dysregulation and poor dopamine (D2 receptor) modulation of this circuitry. These data suggest new approaches to targeting inhibitory control mechanisms in addictions.
Authors: Gregory B Bissonette; Gabriela J Martins; Theresa M Franz; Elizabeth S Harper; Geoffrey Schoenbaum; Elizabeth M Powell Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2008-10-29 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Elise Lesage; Sarah E Aronson; Matthew T Sutherland; Thomas J Ross; Betty Jo Salmeron; Elliot A Stein Journal: JAMA Psychiatry Date: 2017-06-01 Impact factor: 21.596
Authors: Stephanie M Groman; Buyean Lee; Emanuele Seu; Alex S James; Karen Feiler; Mark A Mandelkern; Edythe D London; J David Jentsch Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2012-04-25 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Stephanie M Groman; Alex S James; Emanuele Seu; Steven Tran; Taylor A Clark; Sandra N Harpster; Maverick Crawford; Joanna Lee Burtner; Karen Feiler; Robert H Roth; John D Elsworth; Edythe D London; James David Jentsch Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2014-10-22 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Richard J Macatee; Nicholas P Allan; Agnieszka Gajewska; Aaron M Norr; Amanda Medley Raines; Brian J Albanese; Joseph W Boffa; Norman B Schmidt; Jesse R Cougle Journal: Cognit Ther Res Date: 2015-08-15
Authors: J David Jentsch; James R Ashenhurst; M Catalina Cervantes; Stephanie M Groman; Alexander S James; Zachary T Pennington Journal: Ann N Y Acad Sci Date: 2014-03-21 Impact factor: 5.691
Authors: Jennifer L Hoy; Paola A Haeger; John R L Constable; Renee J Arias; Raluca McCallum; Michael Kyweriga; Lawrence Davis; Eric Schnell; Michael Wehr; Pablo E Castillo; Philip Washbourne Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2013-05-29 Impact factor: 6.167