| Literature DB >> 32688366 |
Alina Strasser1, Gediminas Luksys2,3, Lijing Xin4, Mathias Pessiglione5, Rolf Gruetter6,7,8, Carmen Sandi9.
Abstract
Substantial evidence implicates the nucleus accumbens in motivated performance, but very little is known about the neurochemical underpinnings of individual differences in motivation. Here, we applied 1H magnetic resonance spectroscopy (1H-MRS) at ultra-high-field in the nucleus accumbens and inquired whether levels of glutamate (Glu), glutamine (Gln), GABA or their ratios predict interindividual differences in effort-based motivated task performance. Given the incentive value of social competition, we also examined differences in performance under self-motivated or competition settings. Our results indicate that higher accumbal Gln-to-Glu ratio predicts better overall performance and reduced effort perception. As performance is the outcome of multiple cognitive, motor and physiological processes, we applied computational modeling to estimate best-fitting individual parameters related to specific processes modeled with utility, effort and performance functions. This model-based analysis revealed that accumbal Gln-to-Glu ratio specifically relates to stamina; i.e., the capacity to maintain performance over long periods. It also indicated that competition boosts performance from task onset, particularly for low Gln-to-Glu individuals. In conclusion, our findings provide novel insights implicating accumbal Gln and Glu balance on the prediction of specific computational components of motivated performance. This approach and findings can help developing therapeutic strategies based on targeting metabolism to ameliorate deficits in effort engagement.Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32688366 PMCID: PMC7547698 DOI: 10.1038/s41386-020-0760-6
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Neuropsychopharmacology ISSN: 0893-133X Impact factor: 7.853
Fig. 1In vivo 1H MR spectroscopy in the nucleus accumbens at rest and experimental design of behavioral testing.
a This panel includes a representative 1H MR spectrum acquired with the semi-adiabatic SPECIAL sequence at 7 T (TE/TR = 16 ms/6500 ms, 256 averages), as well as the corresponding LCModel spectral fit, fit residual, macromolecules, baseline and individual metabolite fits for glutamate (Glu), glutamine (Gln), and GABA. b Accumbal metabolite concentrations for glutamate, glutamine, and GABA. No differences in metabolite concentrations were observed between the experimental groups (two-sided independent Student’s t test), indicating optimal group matching for these metabolite concentrations. No differences in metabolite concentrations were expected between the experimental groups (i.e., between isolation and competition) at baseline, as MRS acquisition took place before the social manipulation. Mean metabolite concentrations for both groups combined are also shown (marked Total in the gray bar). Glu glutamate, Gln glutamine, GABA gamma-aminobutyric acid. Error bars are shown in standard deviations. c Modified incentive delay task and the performance of the different participants in the isolation and competition context. Visual stimuli of the modified monetary incentive delay task in the CHF 1 isolation condition. In the competition condition, the gray plus sign was replaced with a gray cartoon of a male opponent, overlaid by the text “against 1”. Successive screen images were shown to participants whilst they were performing the hand grip task, and which guided and cued their performance in line with the instructions that were received prior to data acquisition. We ensured that all participants had seen all visual stimuli and understood the task during the 20-trial experimental practice session. d Exemplary trial dynamic. Here, we show the force dynamics that would occur after the 3 s anticipation period shown in (c). The anticipation period was always followed by a 2 s period during which the force threshold of 50% of their maximal voluntary contraction (MVC) had to be reached. Then, participants had to maintain the force at their threshold level for another 3 s. If successful in this, a green tick appeared on the screen for 1 s, if not, a red cross. e This plot shows the success rate of each participant (indicated as a dot), in the isolation and the competition condition. Performance is shown as a function of the three different incentive sizes (CHF 0.2, CHF 0.5, CHF 1) and of the isolation and competition contexts. In f participants’ performance is plotted as a function of session number (1–4) and of the isolation and competition contexts. The task was structured into two blocks, separated by a 3 min break. Each block contained 2 sessions of each 20 trials: 5 rest trials that occurred at an interval of every 3 action trials, with the incentive sizes varying pseudorandomly to ensure that each incentive could be earned 5 times. The entire MIF task comprised 80 trials. Error bars, SEM. n = 15; isolation. n = 12, competition.
Fig. 2Bivariate correlations between Glu, Gln, GABA, Gln/Glu, and GABA/Gln and total success rate plotted for both groups (isolation and competition) combined.
a Correlation matrix of Glu, Gln, GABA, Gln/Glu, GABA/Gln with performance and effort perception. b NAc glutamine plotted against performance. c NAc Gln/Glu plotted against performance. d NAc glutamine plotted against effort perception. e NAc Gln/Glu plotted against effort perception. Glu glutamate, Gln glutamine, GABA gamma-aminobutyric acid, NAc nucleus accumbens. Success rate was quantified in percentage of correct trials. Effort perception was defined as the level of subjects’ perceived MVC threshold necessary for successful trial completion as described in “Methods”. *p < 0.05. All correlation coefficients are Pearson’s, unless indicated otherwise (Spearman’s; S). n = 22.
Comparison of performance parameters between the isolation and competition groups.
| Parameter | Normality based on total sample | Group | M/median; SD/IQR | Test statistic and |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Isolation | Median = 0.288 IQR = 1.55 | Ranksum = 231 | ||
| Competition | Median = 0.102 IQR = 0.688 | |||
| Isolation | M = 16.1 SD = 13.9 | |||
| Competition | M = 7.5 SD = 8.0 | |||
| Isolation | M = 0.356 SD = 0.535 | |||
| Competition | M = −0.813 SD = 0.962 | |||
| Isolation | Median = 0.969 IQR = 0.061 | Ranksum = 255 | ||
| Competition | Median = 0.621 IQR = 0.87 | |||
| Isolation | Median = 0.998 IQR = 0.055 | Ranksum = 231.5 | ||
| Competition | Median = 0.941 IQR = 0.408 |
Normality was computed with the Kolmogorov–Smirnov test. M mean, SD standard deviation, IQR interquartile range. Comparisons were computed with Student’s t test for normally distributed parameters and with the Mann–Whitney U test for not normally distributed parameters.
Multiple linear regression results (p values) with nucleus accumbens Gln/Glu concentration ratios and experimental task framing as independent variables and estimated model parameter as the dependent variable.
| Model parameter | Association with Gln/Glu ( | Association with task framing ( |
|---|---|---|
| 0.13 | (0.046) | |
| 0.29 | (0.096) | |
| 0.26 | (0.008) | |
| (0.045) | ||
| (0.29) |
For negative associations p values are shown in parentheses.
Fig. 3Individual differences in task performance and model parameters as a function of either low or high Gln/Glu ratio in the NAc and social context.
Interaction between Gln/Glu ratio and social context (isolation versus competition group) in determining a mean overall success rate, b effort cost baseline b, which is indicative of initial task performance and c sprint stamina εspr, indicative of performance decline over consecutive sessions. Social context only influenced initial performance in participants with low Gln/Glu ratio values, letting them achieve the best performance in the competition condition, despite faster performance decline. Blue bars: isolation; red bars: competition. *p < 0.05.