Abstract

Survival depends on the ability of animals to avoid threats and approach rewards. Traditionally, these two opposing motivational systems have been studied separately. In nature, however, they regularly compete for the control of behavior. When threat- and reward-eliciting stimuli (learned or unlearned) occur simultaneously, a motivational conflict emerges that challenges individuals to weigh available options and execute a single behavioral response (avoid or approach). Most previous animal models using approach/avoidance conflicts have often focused on the ability to avoid threats by forgoing or delaying the opportunity to obtain rewards. In contrast, behavioral tasks designed to capitalize on the ability to actively choose to execute approach behaviors despite threats are scarce. Thus, we developed a behavioral test battery composed of three conflict tasks to directly study rats confronting threats to obtain rewards guided by innate and conditioned cues. One conflict task involves crossing a potentially electrified grid to obtain food on the opposite end of a straight alley, the second task is based on the step-down threat avoidance paradigm, and the third one is a modified version of the open field test. We used diazepam to pharmacologically validate conflict behaviors in our tasks. We found that, regardless of whether competing stimuli were conditioned or innate, a low diazepam dose decreased risk assessment and facilitated taking action to obtain rewards in the face of threats during conflict, without affecting choice behavior when there was no conflict involved. Using this pharmacologically validated test battery of ethologically designed innate/learned conflict tasks could help understand the fundamental brain mechanisms underlying the ability to confront threats to achieve goals.

Highlights

  • To ensure survival in nature, animals must avoid threats and pursue rewards

  • Given the impairment effects on locomotion and motor coordination observed after injecting a high dose of DZPM but not after injecting a low dose, we used a low dose of DZPM to test the validity of conflict behaviors in our tasks

  • We evaluated the effect of this DZPM dose on two types of choice-mediated conflict behaviors in our three conflict tasks: (1) the time it takes rats to successfully confront threats to obtain rewards and (2) the number of times rats displayed risk assessment responses toward the reward site

Read more

Summary

Introduction

To ensure survival in nature, animals must avoid threats and pursue rewards This ability involves that animals use inherited or assigned value information of stimuli in the environment (negative or positive valence) to control motivated behaviors (Rangel et al, 2008; Tye, 2018). During foraging, animals regularly encounter threats and rewards simultaneously and are challenged to engage in opposing binary choices (avoid or approach) (Choi and Kim, 2010; Hayden and Walton, 2014; Amir et al, 2015; Mobbs et al, 2018) Such a motivational conflict involves a cost–benefit decision determined by the competition processes between these two mutually exclusive systems interacting (Corr, 2013; McNaughton and Corr, 2014). When reaching the choice point, rodents display characteristic oscillatory conflict behaviors that include hesitantly moving back and forward (Miller, 1944), head dips (Takeda et al, 1998), and stretched postures (Grant and Mackintosh, 1963), as if assessing the risks over the decision to make (risk-assessment behaviors)

Methods
Results
Conclusion

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.