Disruption of positive- and negative-feature morphine interoceptive occasion setters by dopamine receptor agonism and antagonism in male and female rats

RATIONALE

Internally perceived stimuli evoked by morphine administration can form Pavlovian associations such that they can function as occasion setters (OSs) for externally perceived reward cues in rats, coming to modulate reward-seeking behaviour. Though much research has investigated mechanisms underlying opioid-related reinforcement and analgesia, neurotransmitter systems involved in the functioning of opioids as Pavlovian interoceptive discriminative stimuli remain to be disentangled despite documented differences in the development of tolerance to analgesic versus discriminative stimulus effects.

OBJECTIVES

Dopamine has been implicated in many opioid-related behaviours, so we aimed to investigate the role of this neurotransmitter in expression of morphine occasion setting.

METHODS

Male and female rats were assigned to positive- (FP) or negative-feature (FN) groups and received an injection of morphine or saline before each training session. A 15-s white noise conditioned stimulus (CS) was presented 8 times during every training session; offset of this stimulus was followed by 4-s access to liquid sucrose on morphine, but not saline, sessions for FP rats. FN rats learned the reverse contingency. Following stable discrimination, rats began generalization testing for expression of morphine-guided sucrose seeking after systemic pretreatment with different doses of the non-selective dopamine receptor antagonist, flupenthixol, and the non-selective dopamine receptor agonist, apomorphine, combined with training doses of morphine or saline in a Latin-square design.

RESULTS

The morphine discrimination was acquired under both FP and FN contingencies by males and females. Neither flupenthixol nor apomorphine at any dose substituted for morphine, but both apomorphine and flupenthixol disrupted expression of the morphine OS. This inhibition was specific to sucrose seeking during CS presentations rather than during the period before CS onset and, in the case of apomorphine more so than flupenthixol, to trials on which access to sucrose was anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings lend support to a mechanism of occasion setting involving gating of CS-induced dopamine release rather than by direct dopaminergic modulation by the morphine stimulus.

Generalization of a positive-feature interoceptive morphine occasion setter across the rat estrous cycle

INTRODUCTION

Interoceptive stimuli elicited by drug administration acquire conditioned modulatory properties of the induction of conditioned appetitive behaviours by exteroceptive cues. This effect may be modeled using a drug discrimination task in which the drug stimulus is trained as a positive-feature (FP) occasion setter (OS) that disambiguates the relation between an exteroceptive light conditioned stimulus (CS) and a sucrose unconditioned stimulus (US). We previously reported that females are less sensitive to generalization of a FP morphine OS than males, so we investigated the role of endogenous ovarian hormones in this difference.

METHODS

Male and female rats received intermixed injections of 3.2 mg/kg morphine or saline before each daily training session. Training consisted of 8 presentations of the CS, each followed by access to sucrose on morphine, but not saline sessions. Following acquisiton, rats were tested for generalization of the morphine stimulus to 0, 1.0, 3.2, and 5.4 mg/kg morphine. Female rats were monitored for estrous cyclicity using vaginal cytology throughout the study.

RESULTS

Both sexes acquired stable drug discrimination. A gradient of generalization was measured across morphine doses and this behaviour did not differ by sex, nor did it differ across the estrous cycle in females.

CONCLUSIONS

Morphine generalization is independent of fluctuations in levels of sex and endogenous gonadal hormones in females under these experimental conditions.

Nicotine limits avoidance conditioning with opioids without interfering with the ability to discriminate an opioid-interoceptive state

Approximately 90 % of individuals undergoing treatment for opioid use disorder (OUD) report comorbid use of nicotine. As such, further investigation into underlying mechanisms contributing to the extreme comorbidity between nicotine and opioid use are warranted. Nicotine administration significantly escalates self-administration of opioids and this increase in motivational efficacy persists despite contingent punishment of opioid consumption. Additionally, both systemic and intra-insular administration of nicotine produces a rightward shift in the dose-response function in both morphine-induced conditioned place preference and taste avoidance paradigms, particularly at higher doses (5-20 mg/kg). Two possible interpretations arise from these outcomes. One is that nicotine may specifically affect learning about the malaise-inducing effects of morphine thus facilitating acceptance of higher doses of morphine. Another interpretation is that it more generally reduces sensitivity to the interoceptive effects of morphine such that higher doses are needed to produce comparable effects in nicotine-treated, relative to control, rats. To further address these possibilities, we asked whether nicotine administration interfered with the ability to discriminate the morphine interoceptive state, irrespective of its hedonic evaluation, at a dose that is impacted by nicotine in avoidance conditioning paradigms. First, we demonstrated that systemic nicotine pretreatment significantly attenuates taste avoidance induced by a low dose of morphine (3 mg/kg). Next, we used an occasion setting paradigm with this same dose of morphine to test whether systemic nicotine pretreatment interferes with the ability to discriminate between saline- and morphine-induced interoceptive states. Within this task, nicotine had no effect on the ability to effectively discriminate between the interoceptive effects of morphine and saline. Collectively, these data suggest that nicotine may be specifically altering the overall hedonic assessment of morphine perhaps by interfering with learning about its deleterious consequences.

Learning processes in relapse to alcohol use: lessons from animal models

RATIONALE

Alcohol use is reliably preceded by discrete and contextual stimuli which, through diverse learning processes, acquire the capacity to promote alcohol use and relapse to alcohol use.

OBJECTIVE

We review contemporary extinction, renewal, reinstatement, occasion setting, and sex differences research within a conditioning framework of relapse to alcohol use to inform the development of behavioural and pharmacological therapies.

KEY FINDINGS

Diverse learning processes and corresponding neurobiological substrates contribute to relapse to alcohol use. Results from animal models indicate that cortical, thalamic, accumbal, hypothalamic, mesolimbic, glutamatergic, opioidergic, and dopaminergic circuitries contribute to alcohol relapse through separable learning processes. Behavioural therapies could be improved by increasing the endurance and generalizability of extinction learning and should incorporate whether discrete cues and contexts influence behaviour through direct excitatory conditioning or occasion setting mechanisms. The types of learning processes that most effectively influence responding for alcohol differ in female and male rats.

CONCLUSION

Sophisticated conditioning experiments suggest that diverse learning processes are mediated by distinct neural circuits and contribute to relapse to alcohol use. These experiments also suggest that gender-specific behavioural and pharmacological interventions are a way towards efficacious therapies to prevent relapse to alcohol use.

Pavlovian occasion setting in human fear and appetitive conditioning: Effects of trait anxiety and trait depression

Contexts and discrete stimuli often hierarchically influence the association between a stimulus and outcome. This phenomenon, called occasion setting, is central to modulation-based Pavlovian learning. We conducted two experiments with humans in fear and appetitive conditioning paradigms, training stimuli in differential conditioning, feature-positive discriminations, and feature-negative discriminations. We also investigated the effects of trait anxiety and trait depression on these forms of learning. Results from both experiments showed that participants were able to successfully learn which stimuli predicted the electric shock and monetary reward outcomes. Additionally, as hypothesized, the stimuli trained as occasion setters had little-to-no effect on simple reinforced or non-reinforced stimuli, suggesting the former were indeed occasion setters. Lastly, in fear conditioning, trait anxiety was associated with increases in fear of occasion setter/conditional stimulus compounds; in appetitive conditioning, trait depression was associated with lower expectations of monetary reward for the trained negative occasion setting compound and transfer of the negative occasion setter to the simple reinforced stimulus. These results suggest that clinically anxious individuals may have enhanced fear of occasion setting compounds, and clinically depressed individuals may expect less reward with compounds involving the negative occasion setter.

Beyond the hippocampus: The role of parahippocampal-prefrontal communication in context-modulated behavior

Multiple paradigms indicate that the physical environment can influence spontaneous and learned behavior. In rodents, context-dependent behavior is putatively supported by the prefrontal cortex and the medial temporal lobe. A preponderance of the literature has targeted the role of the hippocampus. In addition to the hippocampus proper, the medial temporal lobe also comprises parahippocampal areas, including the perirhinal and postrhinal cortices. These parahippocampal areas directly connect with multiple regions in the prefrontal cortex. The function of these connections, however, is not well understood. This article first reviews the involvement of the perirhinal, postrhinal, and prefrontal cortices in context-dependent behavior in rodents. Then, based on functional and anatomical evidence, we suggest that perirhinal and postrhinal contributions to context-dependent behavior go beyond supporting context representation in the hippocampus. Specifically, we propose that the perirhinal and postrhinal cortices act as a contextual-support network that directly provides contextual and spatial information to the prefrontal cortex. In turn, the perirhinal and postrhinal cortices modulate prefrontal input to the hippocampus in the service of context-guided behavior.

Can the discriminative stimulus effects of nicotine function concurrently as modulatory opponents in operant and pavlovian occasion setting paradigms in rats?

Nicotine promotes interoceptive changes in the nervous system. Such interoceptive stimuli play important roles in modulating addictive behavior. Operant and Pavlovian stimulus control modulate responsiveness to environmental stimuli related to drug-seeking and self-administration. Nicotine functions as a discriminative stimulus in modulating operant behavior as well as Pavlovian feature stimuli in modulating the conditional responding (CR) to exteroceptive CS→US contingencies. Elucidation of the interaction of these interoceptive stimulus control functions is vital for a comprehensive understanding of nicotine use/abuse, which might lead to better behavioral treatment strategies. This experiment evaluated the interaction among Pavlovian feature positive (FP) and feature negative (FN) effects of nicotine on concurrently occurring operant S^D and S^Δ effects. Sixteen rats were trained in a Pavlovian and operant bidirectional contingency paradigm, using nicotine (0.3 mg/kg) and non-drug (saline) states as interoceptive cues for operant discriminative stimulus conditions (S^D and S^Δ) as well as Pavlovian FP and FN for a light-CS, either leading to a shared food pellet outcome or non-outcome. Nicotine and saline sessions were intermixed. For one group of rats (n = 8), nicotine served as an S^D for lever pressing (variable interval 60 s) and simultaneously functioned as an FN for CS-light→noUS relation on the same sessions. On intermixed sessions, saline served as the S^Δ for lever pressing (non-reinforced) and FP, during which the 8-sec light preceded delivery of the food pellet (variable time ITI = 60 s). For the other group (n = 8) nicotine served as the S^Δ (lever pressing non-reinforced) and FP for the CS, with saline serving in the reverse roles. Consecutive brief non-reinforcement tests revealed that: A) rates of lever pressing were significantly greater in S^D than S^Δ with nicotine and saline suggesting strong operant discriminative stimulus control; B) FP responding to the light CS with nicotine and saline was evident; and C) FN suppression of the CR with nicotine was not evident but weak under saline. These data suggest that nicotine can function as an interoceptive context that hierarchically can enter into concurrently opposing modulatory relations in Pavlovian and operant drug discrimination procedures.

Assessing the blocking of occasion setting

An occasion setter (OS) is a stimulus or context with the capacity to disambiguate an ambiguous conditioned stimulus (CS). Previous research has shown that OSs share some features with regular Pavlovian CSs. Amongst them, research has shown that OSs are subject to blocking; that is, a new OS exerts reduced behavioral control after training in compound with a previously established OS. Of additional interest, in Pavlovian blocking, it has been reported that a blocked CS comes to elicit conditioned responding after the extinction of the blocking CS. This is an example of retrospective revaluation, a family of phenomena in which the response to a specific stimulus is modified by training a related cue. Here, three experiments sought to extend the analogies between OS and Pavlovian conditioning by examining the blocking of OSs and its retrospective revaluation. In all experiments, an OS was established by pairing a CS with food in the presence of the OS, but not in its absence (i.e., positive OS). Blocking was then trained by presenting the OS in compound with a novel OS. Experiment 1 showed blocking of the second OS, but direct exposure to the blocking OS did not enhance responding to the second OS. Experiment 2 replicated the blocking effect but subsequent training of the blocking OS with a reversed contingency showed no retrospective revaluation. Experiment 3 examined whether blocking of the OS occurred with a novel CS during the compound phase. In this experiment blocking was again observed, but only when subjects were tested with the original CS. These results are discussed focusing on the underlying links at work in occasion setting.

Reinstatement after human feature-positive discrimination learning

In two experiments, using an online conditioned suppression task, we investigated the possibility of reinstatement of extinguished feature-target compound presentations after sequential feature-positive discrimination training in humans. Furthermore, given a hierarchical account of Pavlovian modulation (e.g., Bonardi, 1998; Bonardi and Jennings, 2009), we predicted A-US reinstatement to be stronger than US-only reinstatement. In Experiment 1, participants learned a sequential feature-positive discrimination (X→A⁺|A^-), which was subsequently extinguished (X→A^-). During the following reinstatement phase, group US-only received US-only presentations (not signalled), group A-US received A-US presentations, and the Control group received exposure to the context, but no CSs or USs, for an equal amount of time. Reinstatement of differential X→A/A responding was observed in the US-only group but not in the Control or A-US groups. Although differential X→A/A responding was not significant in group A-US, responding to the X→A compound was significantly stronger compared to that in group US-only. Hence, it could be the case the group A-US showed stronger reinstatement, but that differential responding was abolished due to excitation gained by A. Experiment 2 was set up to circumvent the acquired excitation of A by testing transfer of the feature after A-US reinstatement to a different target, B. Participants acquired two discriminations, X→A/A and Y→B/B, of which X→A was then extinguished. Subsequently, group A-US received reinforced presentations of A during a reinstatement phase while group Control received exposure to the context. Final testing of the novel X→B compound was hypothesized to show higher responding in group A-US than in group Control, but findings of this approach were limited due to acquired equivalence and/or perceptual factors causing a secondary extinction effect. We conclude to have obtained clear evidence in favour of reinstatement of differential responding after human Feature-Positive discrimination training and subsequent compound extinction, but no evidence in favour of A-US presentations being a stronger trigger for reinstatement than are US-only presentations.

The influence of landmark stability on control by occasion setters

In an operant serial feature-positive procedure, an occasion setter (OS_X) signals that a response will be reinforced in the presence of a second stimulus (e.g., a discriminative stimulus, A). During a transfer test, the OS is paired with a different discriminative stimulus. Experiment 1a tested transfer effects in a touchscreen-based spatial occasion setting task with pigeons. During training, four OSs (OS_W, OS_X, OS_Y, and OS_Z) were paired on separate trials with landmark A (LM_A) or B (LM_B) and the opportunity for a reinforced response at one location to the immediate left (R₁) or right (R₂) of the LM (OS_W→LM_A:R₁, OS_X→LM_A:R₂, OS_Y→LM_B:R₁, OS_Z→LM_B:R₂). Training also included non-reinforced trials of LM_A and LM_B alone (LM_A- and LM_B-) and trials of a non-modulated LM with R₁ and R₂ reinforced across separate trials (LM_C:R₁ and LM_C:R₂). After training, the number and spatial location of responses during test trials of a LM paired with the same OS as in training did not differ reliably from transfer tests of an OS paired with a different, modulated LM (OS_W→LM_B and OS_Y→LM_A), but did differ from transfer to the non-modulated LM (OS_X→LM_C). Experiment 1b utilized the same pigeons and training with LM_B to test the degree to which the spatial stability of a LM influenced transfer. Retraining with LM_A was intended to establish it as a non-modulated, stable LM (LM_A:R₂). Subsequent tests with LM_A revealed reduced modulation by the formerly trained OS (OS_W), and complete disruption of modulation of spatial location during transfer with a different OS (OS_Y). These findings further our understanding of the conditions under which OSs may develop and transfer modulation.

Occasion setting, inhibition, and the contextual control of extinction in Pavlovian and instrumental (operant) learning

An occasion setter is a stimulus that modulates the ability of another stimulus to control behavior. A rich history of experimental investigation has identified several important properties that define occasion setters and the conditions that give rise to occasion setting. In this paper, we first consider the basic hallmarks of occasion setting in Pavlovian conditioning. We then review research that has examined the mechanisms underlying the crucial role of context in Pavlovian and instrumental extinction. In Pavlovian extinction, evidence suggests that the extinction context can function as a negative occasion setter whose role is to disambiguate the current meaning of the conditioned stimulus; the conditioning context can also function as a positive occasion setter. In operant extinction, in contrast, the extinction context may directly inhibit the response, and the conditioning context can directly excite it. We outline and discuss the key results supporting these distinctions.

A theoretical analysis of transfer of occasion setting: SOP with replaced elements

The available data on occasion setting led Susan Brandon and Allan Wagner (Brandon and Wagner, 1998; Wagner and Brandon, 2001) to formulate what has come to be known as a replaced-elements conception (REM) of context-dependent cues within the SOP model (Wagner, 1981). In the present paper, we review the development of the theory, and show how, with a few congenial assumptions about shared cues, it can address some of the major regularities concerning when the transfer of occasion setting does or does not occur. Among the particular examples are the relatively unique transfers that have been reported to occur between separate serial discriminations and between targets that have been trained with the same versus different reinforcers.

Rats that sign-track are resistant to Pavlovian but not instrumental extinction

Individuals vary in the extent to which they attribute incentive salience to a discrete cue (conditioned stimulus; CS) that predicts reward delivery (unconditioned stimulus; US), which results in some individuals approaching and interacting with the CS (sign-trackers; STs) more than others (goal-trackers; GTs). Here we asked how periods of non-reinforcement influence conditioned responding in STs vs. GTs, in both Pavlovian and instrumental tasks. After classifying rats as STs or GTs by pairing a retractable lever (the CS) with the delivery of a food pellet (US), we introduced periods of non-reinforcement, first by simply withholding the US (i.e., extinction training; experiment 1), then by signaling alternating periods of reward (R) and non-reward (NR) within the same session (experiments 2 and 3). We also examined how alternating R and NR periods influenced instrumental responding for food (experiment 4). STs and GTs did not differ in their ability to discriminate between R and NR periods in the instrumental task. However, in Pavlovian settings STs and GTs responded to periods of non-reward very differently. Relative to STs, GTs very rapidly modified their behavior in response to periods of non-reward, showing much faster extinction and better and faster discrimination between R and NR conditions. These results highlight differences between Pavlovian and instrumental extinction learning, and suggest that if a Pavlovian CS is strongly attributed with incentive salience, as in STs, it may continue to bias attention toward it, and to facilitate persistent and relatively inflexible responding, even when it is no longer followed by reward.