Effects of partial reinforcement on autoshaping in inbred Roman high- and low-avoidance rats

Variation in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement in generating different conditioned behaviors

Rat autoshaping procedures generate two readily measurable conditioned responses: During lever presentations that have previously signaled food, rats approach the food well (called goal-tracking) and interact with the lever itself (called sign-tracking). We investigated how reinforced and nonreinforced trials affect the overall and temporal distributions of these two responses across 10-second lever presentations. In two experiments, reinforced trials generated more goal-tracking than sign-tracking, and nonreinforced trials resulted in a larger reduction in goal-tracking than sign-tracking. The effect of reinforced trials was evident as an increase in goal-tracking and reduction in sign-tracking across the duration of the lever presentations, and nonreinforced trials resulted in this pattern transiently reversing and then becoming less evident with further training. These dissociations are consistent with a recent elaboration of the Rescorla-Wagner model, HeiDI (Honey, R.C., Dwyer, D.M., & Iliescu, A.F. (2020a). HeiDI: A model for Pavlovian learning and performance with reciprocal associations. Psychological Review, 127, 829-852.), a model in which responses related to the nature of the unconditioned stimulus (e.g., goal-tracking) have a different origin than those related to the nature of the conditioned stimulus (e.g., sign-tracking).

Behavioral domains in compulsive rats: implications for understanding compulsive spectrum disorders

Introduction

Compulsive behavior has been proposed as a transdiagnostic trait observed in different neuropsychiatric disorders, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, autism, and schizophrenia. Research Domain Criteria (RDoC) strategy could help to disentangle the neuropsychological basis of compulsivity for developing new therapeutic and preventive approaches. In preclinical research, the selection of high-drinker (HD) vs. low-drinker (LD) animals by schedule-induced polydipsia (SIP) is considered a putative model of compulsivity, which includes a well-differentiated behavioral pattern.

Methods

The purpose of this research was to assess the cognitive control and the negative valence system domains in a phenotype of compulsive HD rats. After the selection of animals as HD or LD, we assessed behavioral inflexibility by probabilistic spatial reversal learning (PSRL), motor and cognitive impulsivity by variable delay-to-signal (VDS), and risky decision-making by rodent gambling task (rGT).

Results

HD rats performed fewer reversals and showed less probability of pressing the same lever that was previously reinforced on PSRL, more premature responses after the exposure to longer delays on VDS, and more disadvantageous risky choices on rGT. Moreover, HD animals performed more perseverative responses under the punishment period on rGT.

Discussion

These results highlight that HD compulsive phenotype exhibits behavioral inflexibility, insensitivity to positive feedback, waiting impulsivity, risky decision-making, and frustrative non-reward responsiveness. Moreover, these findings demonstrate the importance of mapping different behavioral domains to prevent, treat, and diagnose compulsive spectrum disorders correctly.

Effort-motivated behavior resolves paradoxes in appetitive conditioning

Motivated behavior has long been studied by psychologists, ethologists, and neuroscientists. To date, many scientists agree with the view that cue and reward attraction is the product of a dopamine-dependent unconscious process called incentive salience or "wanting". This process allows the influence of multiple factors such as hunger and odors on motivational attraction. In some cases, however, the resulting motivated behavior differs from what the incentive salience hypothesis would predict. I argue that seeking behavior under reward uncertainty illustrates this situation: Organisms do not just "want" (appetite-based attraction) cues that are inconsistent or associated with reward occasionally, they "hope" that those cues will consistently predict reward procurement in the ongoing trial. Said otherwise, they become motivated to invest time and energy to find consistent cue-reward associations despite no guarantee of success (effort-based attraction). A multi-test comparison of performance between individuals trained under uncertainty and certainty reveals behavioral paradoxes suggesting that the concept of incentive salience cannot fully account for responding to inconsistent cues. A mathematical model explains how appetite-based and effort-based attractions might combine their effects.

Recovery profiles from reward downshift are correlated with operant licking maintained by alcohol, but not with genetic variation in the mu opioid receptor

After ten 5-min sessions of access to 32% sucrose, a reward downshift (RD) to 2% sucrose induces a transient rejection of the reward. Animals were segregated according to the speed of recovery from RD into Fast-recovery and Slow-recovery subgroups. Animals were subsequently trained in an operant licking (OL) task in which licking at an empty tube provided 10 s of access to a second tube containing 66% alcohol. Licking on the first tube was subjected to a progressive ratio (PR) schedule with a step of 4 licks. Fast-recovery animals (both males and females) licked to a higher ratio than Slow-recovery animals. Animals were also exposed to a well-lit open field (OF) for 20 min. Fast- and Slow-recovery males and females exhibited equal levels of activity in the OF. Tissue samples from tails were assessed for two well-known allelic variations of the human opioid receptor gene, OPRM1, known to affect mu opioid sensitivity: The C17T and A118G single nucleotide polymorphisms. There was no evidence of a relationship between genotype and behavior, suggesting that these genetic mechanisms in humans do not account for the individual differences in recovery from RD and OL for alcohol in rats.