Jen-Hau Yang1, Rose E Presby1, Adam A Jarvie1, Renee A Rotolo1, R Holly Fitch1, Mercè Correa1,2, John D Salamone3. 1. Behavioral Neuroscience Division, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. 2. Area de Psicobiologia, Universitat Jaume I, Castelló, Spain. 3. Behavioral Neuroscience Division, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA. john.salamone@uconn.edu.
Abstract
RATIONALE: Effort-based decision-making tasks offer animals choices between preferred reinforcers that require high effort to obtain vs. low effort/low reward options. The neural mechanisms of effort-based choice are widely studied in rats, and evidence indicates that mesolimbic dopamine (DA) and related neural systems play a key role. Fewer studies of effort-based choice have been performed in mice. OBJECTIVES: The present studies used touchscreen operant procedures (Bussey-Saksida boxes) to assess effort-based choice in mice. METHODS: CD1 mice were assessed on a concurrent fixed ratio 1 panel pressing/choice procedure. Mice were allowed to choose between rearing to press an elevated panel on the touchscreen for a preferred food (strawberry milkshake) vs. consuming a concurrently available less preferred alternative (high carbohydrate pellets). RESULTS: The DA D2 antagonist haloperidol (0.05-0.15 mg/kg IP) produced a dose-related decrease in panel pressing. Intake of food pellets was not reduced by haloperidol, and in fact, there was a significant quadratic trend, indicating a tendency for pellet intake to increase at low/moderate doses. In contrast, reinforcer devaluation by removing food restriction substantially decreased both panel pressing and pellet intake. In free-feeding choice tests, mice strongly preferred milkshake vs. pellets. Haloperidol did not affect food intake or preference. CONCLUSION: Haloperidol reduced the tendency to work for food, but this reduction was not due to decreases in primary food motivation or preference. Mouse touchscreen procedures demonstrate effects of haloperidol that are similar but not identical to those shown in rats. These rodent studies may be relevant for understanding motivational dysfunctions in humans.
RATIONALE: Effort-based decision-making tasks offer animals choices between preferred reinforcers that require high effort to obtain vs. low effort/low reward options. The neural mechanisms of effort-based choice are widely studied in rats, and evidence indicates that mesolimbic dopamine (DA) and related neural systems play a key role. Fewer studies of effort-based choice have been performed in mice. OBJECTIVES: The present studies used touchscreen operant procedures (Bussey-Saksida boxes) to assess effort-based choice in mice. METHODS:CD1mice were assessed on a concurrent fixed ratio 1 panel pressing/choice procedure. Mice were allowed to choose between rearing to press an elevated panel on the touchscreen for a preferred food (strawberry milkshake) vs. consuming a concurrently available less preferred alternative (high carbohydrate pellets). RESULTS: The DA D2 antagonist haloperidol (0.05-0.15 mg/kg IP) produced a dose-related decrease in panel pressing. Intake of food pellets was not reduced by haloperidol, and in fact, there was a significant quadratic trend, indicating a tendency for pellet intake to increase at low/moderate doses. In contrast, reinforcer devaluation by removing food restriction substantially decreased both panel pressing and pellet intake. In free-feeding choice tests, mice strongly preferred milkshake vs. pellets. Haloperidol did not affect food intake or preference. CONCLUSION:Haloperidol reduced the tendency to work for food, but this reduction was not due to decreases in primary food motivation or preference. Mouse touchscreen procedures demonstrate effects of haloperidol that are similar but not identical to those shown in rats. These rodent studies may be relevant for understanding motivational dysfunctions in humans.
Authors: James M Gold; Gregory P Strauss; James A Waltz; Benjamin M Robinson; Jamie K Brown; Michael J Frank Journal: Biol Psychiatry Date: 2013-02-07 Impact factor: 13.382
Authors: Ryan D Ward; Eleanor H Simpson; Vanessa L Richards; Gita Deo; Kathleen Taylor; John I Glendinning; Eric R Kandel; Peter D Balsam Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology Date: 2012-03-14 Impact factor: 7.853
Authors: Patrick A Randall; Christie A Lee; Samantha J Podurgiel; Evan Hart; Samantha E Yohn; Myles Jones; Margaret Rowland; Laura López-Cruz; Mercè Correa; John D Salamone Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2014-10-31 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Edênia C Menezes; Relish Shah; Lindsay Laughlin; K Yaragudri Vinod; John F Smiley; Catarina Cunha; Andrea Balla; Henry Sershen; Francisco X Castellanos; André Corvelo; Cátia M Teixeira Journal: J Neurosci Date: 2021-02-03 Impact factor: 6.167
Authors: Naxin Ren; Carla Carratala-Ros; Alev Ecevitoglu; Renee A Rotolo; Gayle A Edelstein; Rose E Presby; Ian H Stevenson; James J Chrobak; John D Salamone Journal: J Exp Anal Behav Date: 2022-03-28 Impact factor: 2.215
Authors: Renee A Rotolo; Predrag Kalaba; Vladimir Dragacevic; Rose E Presby; Julia Neri; Emily Robertson; Jen-Hau Yang; Merce Correa; Vasiliy Bakulev; Natalia N Volkova; Christian Pifl; Gert Lubec; John D Salamone Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2020-08-07 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Carla Carratalá-Ros; Laura López-Cruz; Andrea Martínez-Verdú; Régulo Olivares-García; John D Salamone; Mercè Correa Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2021-07-09 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: Jen-Hau Yang; Rose E Presby; Suzanne Cayer; Renee A Rotolo; Peter A Perrino; R Holly Fitch; Merce Correa; Elissa J Chesler; John D Salamone Journal: Pharmacol Biochem Behav Date: 2020-06-25 Impact factor: 3.697
Authors: Carla Carratalá-Ros; Laura López-Cruz; Noemí SanMiguel; Patricia Ibáñez-Marín; Andrea Martínez-Verdú; John D Salamone; Mercè Correa Journal: Front Behav Neurosci Date: 2020-01-30 Impact factor: 3.558
Authors: A Maryse Minnaard; Mieneke C M Luijendijk; Annemarie M Baars; Lisa Drost; Geert M J Ramakers; Roger A H Adan; Heidi M B Lesscher; Louk J M J Vanderschuren Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2022-01-31 Impact factor: 4.530