Michael W Shiflett1. 1. Department of Psychology, Rutgers University, 101 Warren Street, 301 Smith Hall, Newark, NJ 07102, USA. shiflett@psychology.rutgers.edu
Abstract
RATIONALE: Repeated exposure to psychostimulants alters behavioral responses to reward-related cues; however, the motivational underpinnings of this effect have not been fully characterized. OBJECTIVES: The following study was designed to examine how amphetamine sensitization affects performance in rats on a series of Pavlovian and operant tasks that distinguish between general-incentive and outcome-selective forms of conditioned responses. METHODS: Adult male rats underwent Pavlovian and instrumental training for food pellet rewards. Following training, rats were sensitized to D-amphetamine (2 mg/kg for 7 days). Rats were subsequently tested on an outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) task, an outcome-reinstatement task, and an outcome devaluation task. Additionally, in a separate experiment, PIT was assessed in amphetamine-sensitized and control rats using a Pavlovian backward-conditioned stimulus. RESULTS: Repeated amphetamine exposure sensitized locomotor activity to acute amphetamine challenge. Amphetamine altered responses to CS presentations by increasing conditioned approach. During tests of PIT, amphetamine-treated rats showed no outcome-selectivity in their responding, responding to a CS whether or not it shared a common outcome with the instrumental response. No effect of amphetamine sensitization was observed on tests of outcome-selective reinstatement by outcome delivery or action selection based on outcome value. Amphetamine-sensitized rats showed impaired outcome-selective PIT to a backward CS but were unaltered in conditioned approach. CONCLUSIONS: Amphetamine sensitization prevents outcome-selective responding during PIT, which is dissociable from amphetamine's effects on conditioned approach. These data suggest fundamental alterations in how stimuli motivate action in addiction.
RATIONALE: Repeated exposure to psychostimulants alters behavioral responses to reward-related cues; however, the motivational underpinnings of this effect have not been fully characterized. OBJECTIVES: The following study was designed to examine how amphetamine sensitization affects performance in rats on a series of Pavlovian and operant tasks that distinguish between general-incentive and outcome-selective forms of conditioned responses. METHODS: Adult male rats underwent Pavlovian and instrumental training for food pellet rewards. Following training, rats were sensitized to D-amphetamine (2 mg/kg for 7 days). Rats were subsequently tested on an outcome-selective Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) task, an outcome-reinstatement task, and an outcome devaluation task. Additionally, in a separate experiment, PIT was assessed in amphetamine-sensitized and control rats using a Pavlovian backward-conditioned stimulus. RESULTS: Repeated amphetamine exposure sensitized locomotor activity to acute amphetamine challenge. Amphetamine altered responses to CS presentations by increasing conditioned approach. During tests of PIT, amphetamine-treated rats showed no outcome-selectivity in their responding, responding to a CS whether or not it shared a common outcome with the instrumental response. No effect of amphetamine sensitization was observed on tests of outcome-selective reinstatement by outcome delivery or action selection based on outcome value. Amphetamine-sensitized rats showed impaired outcome-selective PIT to a backward CS but were unaltered in conditioned approach. CONCLUSIONS:Amphetamine sensitization prevents outcome-selective responding during PIT, which is dissociable from amphetamine's effects on conditioned approach. These data suggest fundamental alterations in how stimuli motivate action in addiction.
Authors: R E Nordquist; P Voorn; J G de Mooij-van Malsen; R N J M A Joosten; C M A Pennartz; L J M J Vanderschuren Journal: Eur Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2007-02-01 Impact factor: 4.600
Authors: Ruud van den Bos; Johanneke van der Harst; Natalie Vijftigschild; Berry Spruijt; Gilles van Luijtelaar; Roald Maes Journal: Behav Brain Res Date: 2004-08-31 Impact factor: 3.332
Authors: Lee Hogarth; Chris Retzler; Marcus R Munafò; Dominic M D Tran; Joseph R Troisi; Abigail K Rose; Andrew Jones; Matt Field Journal: Behav Res Ther Date: 2014-06-17