A mechanical task for measuring sign- and goal-tracking in humans: A proof-of-concept study

Risk-promoting effects of reward-paired cues in human sign- and goal-trackers

Animal research suggests trait-like individual variation in the degree of incentive salience attribution to reward-predictive cues, defined phenotypically as sign-tracking (high) and goal-tracking (low incentive salience attribution). While these phenotypes have been linked to addiction features in rodents, their translational validity is less clear. Here, we examined whether sign- and goal-tracking in healthy human volunteers modulates the effects of reward-paired cues on decision making. Sign-tracking was measured in a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm as the amount of eye gaze fixation on the reward-predictive cue versus the location of impending reward delivery. In Study 1 (Cherkasova et al., 2018), participants were randomly assigned to perform a binary choice task in which rewards were either accompanied (cued, n = 63) or unaccompanied (uncued, n = 68) by money images and casino jingles. In Study 2, participants (n = 58) performed cued and uncued versions of the task in a within-subjects design. Across both studies, cues promoted riskier choice. Sign-tracking was not associated with risky choice in either study. Goal-tracking rather than sign-tracking was significantly associated with greater risk-promoting effects of cues in Study 1 but not in Study 2, although the direction of findings was consistent across both studies. These findings are at odds with the notion of sign-trackers being preferentially susceptible to the influence of reward cues on behavior and point to the role of mechanisms besides incentive salience in mediating such influences.

Sign-tracking and goal-tracking in humans: Utilising eye-tracking in clinical and non-clinical populations

BACKGROUND

In Pavlovian conditioning, learned behaviour varies according to the perceived value of environmental cues. For goal-trackers (GT), the cue merely predicts a reward, whilst for sign-trackers (ST), the cue holds incentive value. The sign-tracking/goal-tracking model is well-validated in animals, but translational work is lacking. Despite the model's relevance to several conditions, including attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), we are unaware of any studies that have examined the model in clinical populations.

METHODS

The current study used an eye-tracking Pavlovian conditioning paradigm to identify ST and GT in non-clinical (N = 54) and ADHD (N = 57) participants. Eye movements were recorded whilst performing the task. Dwell time was measured for two areas of interest: sign (i.e., cue) and goal (i.e., reward), and an eye-gaze index (EGI) was computed based on the dwell time sign-to-goal ratio. Higher EGI values indicate sign-tracking behaviour. ST and GT were determined using median and tertiary split approaches in both samples.

RESULTS

Despite greater propensity for sign-tracking in those with ADHD, there was no significant difference between groups. The oculomotor conditioned response was reward-specific (CS+) and present, at least partly, from the start of the task indicating dispositional and learned components. There were no differences in externalising behaviours between ST and GT for either sample.

CONCLUSIONS

Sign-tracking is associated with CS+ trials only. There may be both dispositional and learned components to sign-tracking, potentially more common in those with ADHD. This holds translational potential for understanding individual differences in reward-learning.

Basal Forebrain Chemogenetic Inhibition Converts the Attentional Control Mode of Goal-Trackers to That of Sign-Trackers

Sign tracking versus goal tracking in rats indicate vulnerability and resistance, respectively, to Pavlovian cue-evoked addictive drug taking and relapse. Here, we tested hypotheses predicting that the opponent cognitive-behavioral styles indexed by sign tracking versus goal tracking include variations in attentional performance which differentially depend on basal forebrain projection systems. Pavlovian Conditioned Approach (PCA) testing was used to identify male and female sign-trackers (STs) and goal-trackers (GTs), as well as rats with an intermediate phenotype (INTs). Upon reaching asymptotic performance in an operant task requiring the detection of visual signals (hits) as well as the reporting of signal absence for 40 min per session, GTs scored more hits than STs, and hit rates across all phenotypes correlated with PCA scores. STs missed relatively more signals than GTs specifically during the last 15 min of a session. Chemogenetic inhibition of the basal forebrain decreased hit rates in GTs but was without effect in STs. Moreover, the decrease in hits in GTs manifested solely during the last 15 min of a session. Transfection efficacy in the horizontal limb of the diagonal band (HDB), but not substantia innominate (SI) or nucleus basalis of Meynert (nbM), predicted the behavioral efficacy of chemogenetic inhibition in GTs. Furthermore, the total subregional transfection space, not transfection of just cholinergic neurons, correlated with performance effects. These results indicate that the cognitive-behavioral phenotype indexed by goal tracking, but not sign tracking, depends on activation of the basal forebrain-frontal cortical projection system and associated biases toward top-down or model-based performance.