Clueless about cues: the impact of reward-paired cues on decision making under uncertainty

Noradrenergic regulation of cue-guided decision making and impulsivity is doubly dissociable across frontal brain regions

RATIONALE

Win-paired stimuli can promote risk taking in experimental gambling paradigms in both rats and humans. We previously demonstrated that atomoxetine, a noradrenaline reuptake inhibitor, and guanfacine, a selective α2A adrenergic receptor agonist, reduced risk taking on the cued rat gambling task (crGT), a rodent assay of risky choice in which wins are accompanied by salient cues. Both compounds also decreased impulsive premature responding.

OBJECTIVE

The key neural loci mediating these effects were unknown. The lateral orbitofrontal cortex (lOFC) and the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC), which are highly implicated in risk assessment, action selection, and impulse control, receive dense noradrenergic innervation. We therefore infused atomoxetine and guanfacine directly into either the lOFC or prelimbic (PrL) mPFC prior to task performance.

RESULTS

When infused into the lOFC, atomoxetine improved decision making score and adaptive lose-shift behaviour in males, but not in females, without altering motor impulsivity. Conversely, intra-PrL atomoxetine improved impulse control in risk preferring animals of both sexes, but did not alter decision making. Guanfacine administered into the PrL, but not lOFC, also altered motor impulsivity in all subjects, though in the opposite direction to atomoxetine.

CONCLUSIONS

These data highlight a double dissociation between the behavioural effects of noradrenergic signaling across frontal regions with respect to risky choice and impulsive action. Given that the influence of noradrenergic manipulations on motor impulsivity could depend on baseline risk preference, these data also suggest that the noradrenaline system may function differently in subjects that are susceptible to the risk-promoting lure of win-associated cues.

Am I Winning or Losing? Probing the Appraisal of Partial Wins via Response Vigor

Attempts to obtain rewards are not always successful. Despite investing much time, effort, or money, sometimes individuals may not obtain any reward. Other times they may obtain some reward, but the obtained reward may be smaller than their initial investment, such as partial wins in gambling. It remains unclear how such ambiguous outcomes are appraised. To address this question, we systematically varied the payoffs for different outcomes in a computerized scratch card task across three experiments. To test outcome appraisal, we used response vigor as a novel proxy. In the scratch card task, participants turned three cards one by one. Depending on the turned cards, they either received an amount that was higher than the wager (win), an amount lower than the wager (partial win), or nothing (loss). Overall, participants responded to partial wins more slowly than losses, but more quickly than wins. Partial wins were therefore appraised to be better than losses, but worse than wins. Importantly, further analyses showed that outcome appraisal was not based on the net win or loss amount. Instead, participants primarily used the configuration of turned cards as a cue for the relative rank of an outcome within a specific game. Outcome appraisals thus utilize simple heuristic rules, rely on salient information (such as outcome-related cues in gambling), and are specific to a local context. Together, these factors may contribute to the misperception of partial wins as real wins in gambling. Future work may examine how outcome appraisal may be modulated by the salience of certain information, and investigate the appraisal process in contexts beyond gambling.

Win-Paired Cues Modulate the Effect of Dopamine Neuron Sensitization on Decision Making and Cocaine Self-administration: Divergent Effects Across Sex

BACKGROUND

Both psychostimulant use and engagement with probabilistic schedules of reward sensitize the mesocorticolimbic dopamine (DA) system. Such behaviors may act synergistically to explain the high comorbidity between stimulant use and gambling disorder. The salient audiovisual stimuli of modern electronic gambling may exacerbate the situation.

METHODS

To probe these interactions, we sensitized ventral tegmental area DA neurons via chronic chemogenetic stimulation while rats (n = 134) learned a rat gambling task in the presence or absence of casino-like cues. The same rats then learned to self-administer cocaine. In a separate cohort (n = 25), we confirmed that our chemogenetic methods sensitized the locomotor response to cocaine and potentiated phasic excitability of ventral tegmental area DA neurons through in vivo electrophysiological recordings.

RESULTS

In the absence of cues, sensitization promoted risk taking in both sexes. When rewards were cued, sensitization expedited the development of a risk-preferring phenotype in males while attenuating cue-induced risk taking in females.

CONCLUSIONS

While these results provide further confirmation that ventral tegmental area DA neurons critically modulate risky decision making, they also reveal stark sex differences in the decisional impact that dopaminergic signals exert when winning outcomes are cued. As previously observed, risky decision making on the cued rat gambling task increased as both males and females learned to self-administer cocaine. The combination of DA sensitization and win-paired cues while gambling led to significantly greater cocaine taking, but these rats did not show any increase in risky choice as a result. Therefore, cocaine and heavily cued gambles may partially substitute for each other once the DA system has been rendered labile through sensitization, thereby compounding addiction risk across modalities.