Goal-tracking Rats Research Articles

Excitatory and Inhibitory Signaling in the Nucleus Accumbens Encode Different Aspects of a Pavlovian Cue in Sign Tracking and Goal Tracking Rats.

When a Pavlovian cue is presented separately from its associated reward, some animals will acquire a sign tracking (ST) response - approach and/or interaction with the cue - while others will acquire a goal tracking response - approach to the site of reward. We have previously shown that cue-evoked excitations in the nucleus accumbens (NAc) encode the vigor of both behaviors; in contrast, reward-related responses diverge over the course of training, possibly reflecting neurochemical differences between sign tracker and goal tracker individuals. However, a substantial subset of neurons in the NAc exhibit inhibitory, rather than excitatory, cue-evoked responses, and the evolution of their signaling during Pavlovian conditioning remains unknown. Using single-neuron recordings in behaving rats, we show that NAc neurons with cue-evoked inhibitions have distinct coding properties from neurons with cue-evoked excitations. Cue-evoked inhibitions become more numerous over the course of training and, like excitations, may encode the vigor of sign tracking and goal tracking behavior. However, the responses of cue-inhibited neurons do not evolve differently between sign tracker and goal tracker individuals. Moreover, cue-evoked inhibitions, unlike excitations, are insensitive to extinction of the cue-reward relationship. Finally, we show that cue-evoked excitations are greatly diminished by reward devaluation, while inhibitory cue responses are virtually unaffected. Overall, these findings converge with existing evidence that cue-excited neurons in NAc, but not cue-inhibited neurons, are profoundly sensitive to the same behavior variations that are often associated with changes in dopamine release.

Effects of predictive and incentive value manipulation on sign- and goal-tracking behavior

When a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an appetitive reward, two different types of conditioned approach responses may develop: a sign-tracking response directed toward the neutral cue, or a goal-tracking response directed toward the location of impending reward delivery. Sign-tracking responses have been postulated to result from attribution of incentive value to conditioned cues, while goal-tracking reflects the assignment of only predictive value to the cue. We therefore hypothesized that sign-tracking rats would be more sensitive to manipulations of incentive value, while goal-tracking rats would be more responsive to changes in the predictive value of the cue. We tested sign- and goal-tracking before and after devaluation of a food reward using lithium chloride, and tested whether either response could be learned under negative contingency conditions that precluded any serendipitous reinforcement of the behavior that might support instrumental learning. We also tested the effects of blocking the predictive value of a cue using simultaneous presentation of a pre-conditioned cue. We found that sign-tracking was sensitive to outcome devaluation, while goal-tracking was not. We also confirmed that both responses are Pavlovian because they can be learned under negative contingency conditions. Goal-tracking was almost completely blocked by a pre-conditioned cue, while sign-tracking was much less sensitive to such interference. These results indicate that sign- and goal-tracking may follow different rules of reinforcement learning and suggest a need to revise current models of associative learning to account for these differences.

Inactivation of the Basolateral Amygdala to Insular Cortex Pathway Makes Sign-Tracking Sensitive to Outcome Devaluation.

Goal-tracking (GT) rats are sensitive to Pavlovian outcome devaluation while sign-tracking (ST) rats are devaluation insensitive. During outcome devaluation, GT rats flexibly modify responding to cues based on the current value of the associated outcome. However, ST rats rigidly respond to cues regardless of the current outcome value. Prior work demonstrated disconnection of the basolateral amygdala (BLA) and anterior insular cortex (aIC) decreased both GT and ST behaviors. Given the role of these regions in appetitive motivation and behavioral flexibility, we predicted that disrupting BLA to aIC pathway during outcome devaluation would reduce flexibility in GT rats and reduce rigid appetitive motivation in ST rats. We inhibited the BLA to aIC pathway by infusing inhibitory DREADDs (hM4Di-mcherry) or control (mCherry) virus into the BLA and implanted cannulae into the aIC to inhibit BLA terminals using intracranial injections of clozapine N-oxide (CNO). After training, we used a within-subject satiety-induced outcome devaluation procedure in which we sated rats on training pellets (devalued condition) or homecage chow (valued condition). All rats received bilateral CNO infusions into the aIC before brief nonreinforced test sessions. Contrary to our hypothesis, BLA-IC inhibition did not interfere with devaluation sensitivity in GT rats but did make ST behaviors sensitive to devaluation. Intermediate rats showed the opposite effect, showing rigid responding to cues with BLA-aIC pathway inactivation. Together, these results demonstrate BLA-IC projections mediate tracking-specific Pavlovian devaluation sensitivity and highlights the importance of considering individual differences in Pavlovian approach when evaluating circuitry contributions to behavioral flexibility.

Investigating discriminative stimulus modulation of opioid seeking after conflict-induced abstinence in sign- and goal-tracking rats.

Discriminative stimuli (DS) are cues that predict reward availability. DS are resistant to extinction and motivate drug seeking even after long periods of abstinence. Previous studies have demonstrated that sign-tracking (ST) and goal-tracking (GT) differences in Pavlovian approach predict distinct cue-modulated vulnerabilities to cocaine reinstatement. GT rats show heightened reinstatement to contextual and DS, while ST rats show heightened reinstatement to discrete stimuli. Here we examine whether DS modulate reinstatement after electric barrier-induced abstinence and whether tracking-related relapse vulnerabilities generalize to opioid relapse. We examine whether DS-modulated reinstatement to fentanyl seeking persists in the presence of reduced adverse consequences after electric barrier-induced abstinence. We also examine whether tracking differences predict the magnitude of DS-modulated reinstatement of fentanyl seeking after electric barrier-induced abstinence. We used Pavlovian lever autoshaping (PLA) training to determine sign-, goal-, and intermediate tracking groups in male and female Sprague Dawley rats. We then trained rats in a DS model of intermittent fentanyl self-administration, and extinguished drug seeking by imposing an electric barrier of increasing intensity. We then measured the level of DS-modulated reinstatement in the presence of a reduced electric barrier intensity. We report that DS strongly modulate fentanyl seeking after electric barrier-induced abstinence. DS-modulation of fentanyl acquisition, electric barrier-induced abstinence, and reinstatement was similar for sign- and goal-tracking groups. Discriminative stimuli powerfully motivate opioid seeking, despite continued aversive consequences. Pavlovian approach differences do not predict the level of DS-modulated reinstatement to fentanyl seeking after conflict-induced abstinence.

Manipulation of Predictive and Incentive Value Have Divergent Effects on Sign- and Goal-Tracking Behavior

When a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an appetitive reward, two different types of conditioned approach responses may develop: a sign-tracking response directed toward the neutral cue, or a goal-tracking response directed toward the location of impending reward delivery. Sign-tracking responses have been postulated to result from attribution of incentive value to conditioned cues, while goal-tracking reflects the assignment of only predictive value to the cue. We therefore hypothesized that sign-tracking rats would be more sensitive to manipulations of incentive value, while goal-tracking rats would be more responsive to changes in the predictive value of the cue.

Basolateral Amygdala to Nucleus Accumbens Communication Differentially Mediates Devaluation Sensitivity of Sign- and Goal-Tracking Rats.

Rats rely on communication between the basolateral amygdala (BLA) and nucleus accumbens (NAc) to express lever directed approach in a Pavlovian lever autoshaping (PLA) task that distinguishes sign- and goal-tracking rats. During PLA, sign-tracking rats preferentially approach an insertable lever cue, while goal-tracking rats approach a foodcup where rewards are delivered. While sign-tracking rats inflexibly respond to cues even after the associated reward is devalued, goal-tracking rats flexibly reduce responding to cues during outcome devaluation. Here, we sought to determine whether BLA–NAc communication, which is necessary for sign, but not goal-tracking, drives a rigid appetitive approach of sign-tracking rats that are insensitive to manipulations of outcome value. Using a contralateral chemogenetic inactivation design, we injected contralateral BLA and NAc core with inhibitory DREADD (hm4Di-mCherry) or control (mCherry) constructs. To determine sign- and goal-tracking groups, we trained rats in five PLA sessions in which brief lever insertion predicts food pellet delivery. We sated rats on training pellets (devalued condition) or chow (valued condition) before systemic clozapine injections (0.1 mg/kg) to inactivate BLA and contralateral NAc during two outcome devaluation probe tests, in which we measured lever and foodcup approach. Contralateral BLA–NAc chemogenetic inactivation promoted a flexible lever approach in sign-tracking rats but disrupted the flexible foodcup approach in goal-tracking rats. Consistent with a prior BLA–NAc disconnection lesion study, we find contralateral chemogenetic inactivation of BLA and NAc core reduces lever, but not the foodcup approach in PLA. Together these findings suggest rigid appetitive associative encoding in BLA–NAc of sign-tracking rats hinders the expression of flexible behavior when outcome value changes.

Effects of ad libitum feeding and prefeeding on operant responding in sign- and goal-tracking rats

Sign-tracking and goal-tracking are behavioral tendencies in which Pavlovian conditioned responses are directed either toward the cue for an unconditioned stimulus (sign-tracking) or toward the location of an unconditioned stimulus delivery (goal-tracking). The current study examined operant response rates in sign- (n = 7) and goal-tracking (n = 11) Wistar rats under a restricted feeding schedule, ad libitum access to food, and reinforcer devaluation by prefeeding either the same or a different flavored pellet reinforcer. Only goal-tracking subjects significantly decreased their response rates after reinforcer devaluation by prefeeding, and only when the flavor used in prefeeding matched the reinforcer flavor. Both groups of subjects decreased responding under ad libitum food access compared to a 16-h food restriction schedule, but this effect size was larger in goal-tracking rats. These results extend recent findings that sign-trackers are more likely than goal-trackers to continue conditioned responding after unconditioned stimulus devaluation during operant conditioning.

Effects of Limited and Extended Pavlovian Training on Devaluation Sensitivity of Sign- and Goal-Tracking Rats.

Individual differences in Pavlovian approach predict differences in devaluation sensitivity. Recent studies indicate goal-tracking (GT) rats are sensitive to outcome devaluation while sign-tracking (ST) rats are not. With extended training in Pavlovian lever autoshaping (PLA), GT rats display more lever-directed behavior, typical of ST rats, suggesting they may become insensitive to devaluation with more Pavlovian training experience. Here, we use a within-subject satiety-induced outcome devaluation procedure to test devaluation sensitivity after limited and extended PLA training in GT and ST rats. We trained rats in PLA to determine GT and ST groups. Then, we sated rats on either the training pellets (devalued condition) or homecage chow (valued condition) prior to brief non-reinforced test sessions after limited (sessions 5/6) and extended (sessions 17/18) PLA training. GT rats decreased conditioned responding under devalued relative to valued conditions after both limited and extended training, demonstrating they are sensitive to satiety devaluation regardless of the amount of PLA training. While ST rats were insensitive to satiety devaluation after limited training, their lever directed behavior became devaluation sensitive after extended training. To determine whether sign-tracking rats also displayed sensitivity to illness-induced outcome devaluation after extended training, we trained a separate cohort of rats in extended PLA and devalued the outcome with lithium chloride injections after pellet consumption in the homecage. ST rats failed to decrease conditioned responding after illness-induced outcome devaluation, while Non-ST rats (GT and intermediates) were sensitive to illness-induced outcome devaluation after extended training. Together, our results confirm devaluation sensitivity is stable in GT rats across training and devaluation approaches. Extended training unmasks devaluation sensitivity in ST rats after satiety, but not illness-induced devaluation, suggesting ST rats respond appropriately by decreasing responding to cues during state-dependent but not inference-based devaluation. The differences in behavioral flexibility across tracking groups and devaluation paradigms have translational relevance for the understanding state- vs. inference-based reward devaluation as it pertains to drug addiction vulnerability.

Sign- and goal-tracking rats show differences in various executive functions

Sign tracking (ST) is a complex Pavlovian trait that is known to impact instrumental behaviour. Recent work suggests that this trait also correlates with altered top-down executive control relative to goal tracking (GT) rats. This raises the question as to the extent to which both phenotypes differ in executive functions. Moreover, it is unclear which cognitive processes might cause potential differences between ST and GT rats. We therefore compared the behaviour of ST and GT rats in several assays, such as outcome devaluation, attentional set shifting and reversal learning, conditional responding, as well as delayed alternation to measure different aspects of executive functioning. Goal-directed behaviour per se was not different between ST and GT rats in the outcome devaluation task. ST rats performed slightly better than GT rats in one condition of the set shifting task (place->cue shift) and the delayed alternation task, but did not perform as well in the conditional responding task. Thus, differential behavioural performance between ST and GT rats was dependent on the specific task context. Further, we found evidence that the differences in executive functions are likely related to increased incentive salience attribution and impulsive action in ST rats.

Basal forebrain chemogenetic inhibition disrupts the superior complex movement control of goal-tracking rats.

Sign- and goal-tracking behavior signifies the influence of opposed cognitive-motivational styles, with the former being characterized by a tendency for approaching and contacting reward cues, including a readiness for attending, bottom-up, to salient cues, and a relatively greater vulnerability for developing and maintaining addiction-like behaviors. We previously demonstrated that these styles also impact the cognitive-motor interactions that are taxed during traversal of dynamic surfaces, with goal-trackers (GTs) making less movement errors and falling less frequently than sign-trackers (STs). The present experiment tested the hypothesis that complex movement control in GTs, but not STs, depends on activation of the basal forebrain projection system to telencephalic regions. Chemogenetic inhibition of the basal forebrain increased movement errors and falls in GTs during traversal of a rotating zigzag rod but had no significant effect on the relatively lower performance of STs. Neurochemical evidence confirmed the efficacy of the inhibitory designer receptor exclusively activated by designer drug (DREADD). Administration of clozapine-N-oxide (CNO) had no significant effect in GTs not expressing the DREADD. These results indicate that GTs, but not STs, activate the basal forebrain projection system to mediate their relatively superior ability for complex movement control. STs may also serve as an animal model in research on the role of basal forebrain systems in aging- and Parkinson's disease-associated falls. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Addiction vulnerability trait impacts complex movement control: Evidence from sign-trackers

Cognitive-motivational vulnerability traits are associated with increased risk for substance addiction and relapse. Sign-tracking (ST) behavior in rats is associated with poor attentional control, mediated by an unresponsive basal forebrain cholinergic system, and an increased risk for substance addiction/relapse. A separate literature links poor attentional control and cholinergic losses to increased fall risk in Parkinson’s disease. Here we tested the hypothesis that the relatively inferior attentional control of STs extends to complex movement control and a propensity for falls. STs were found to fall more often than goal-trackers (GTs) while traversing a straight rotating rod and, similar to human fallers, when taxed by a secondary task. Furthermore, STs fell more often while traversing a rotating zig-zag rod. GTs exhibited fewer falls from this rod by avoiding entry to the rotating zig-zag sections when in, or rotating toward, a difficult traversal state. Goal-tracking rats approached risky movement situations using strategies indicative of superior top-down control. These results suggest that the impact of opponent cognitive-cholinergic traits extends to complex movement control, and that impairments in the cognitive-motor interface are likely to be comorbid with addiction vulnerability. Sign-tracking indexes an endophenotype that may increase the risk for a wide range of neurobehavioral disorders.

Disconnection of basolateral amygdala and insular cortex disrupts conditioned approach in Pavlovian lever autoshaping

Previously established individual differences in appetitive approach and devaluation sensitivity observed in goal- and sign-trackers may be attributed to differences in the acquisition, modification, or use of associative information in basolateral amygdala (BLA) pathways. Here, we sought to determine the extent to which communication of associative information between BLA and anterior portions of insular cortex (IC) supports ongoing Pavlovian conditioned approach behaviors in sign- and goal-tracking rats, in the absence of manipulations to outcome value. We hypothesized that the BLA mediates goal-, but not sign- tracking approach through interactions with the IC, a brain region involved in supporting flexible behavior. We first trained rats in Pavlovian lever autoshaping to determine their sign- or goal-tracking tendency. During alternating test sessions, we gave unilateral intracranial injections of vehicle or a cocktail of gamma-aminobutyric acid (GABA) receptor agonists, baclofen and muscimol, unilaterally into the BLA and contralaterally or ipsilaterally into the IC prior to reinforced lever autoshaping sessions. Consistent with our hypothesis we found that contralateral inactivation of BLA and IC increased the latency to approach the food cup and decreased the number of food cup contacts in goal-trackers. While contralateral inactivation of BLA and IC did not affect the total number of lever contacts in sign-trackers, this manipulation increased the latency to approach the lever. Ipsilateral inactivation of BLA and IC did not impact approach behaviors in Pavlovian lever autoshaping. These findings, contrary to our hypothesis, suggest that communication between BLA and IC maintains a representation of initially learned appetitive associations that commonly support the initiation of Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior regardless of whether it is directed at the cue or the location of reward delivery.

Dual reward prediction components yield Pavlovian sign- and goal-tracking.

Reinforcement learning (RL) has become a dominant paradigm for understanding animal behaviors and neural correlates of decision-making, in part because of its ability to explain Pavlovian conditioned behaviors and the role of midbrain dopamine activity as reward prediction error (RPE). However, recent experimental findings indicate that dopamine activity, contrary to the RL hypothesis, may not signal RPE and differs based on the type of Pavlovian response (e.g. sign- and goal-tracking responses). In this study, we address this discrepancy by introducing a new neural correlate for learning reward predictions; the correlate is called “cue-evoked reward”. It refers to a recall of reward evoked by the cue that is learned through simple cue-reward associations. We introduce a temporal difference learning model, in which neural correlates of the cue itself and cue-evoked reward underlie learning of reward predictions. The animal's reward prediction supported by these two correlates is divided into sign and goal components respectively. We relate the sign and goal components to approach responses towards the cue (i.e. sign-tracking) and the food-tray (i.e. goal-tracking) respectively. We found a number of correspondences between simulated models and the experimental findings (i.e. behavior and neural responses). First, the development of modeled responses is consistent with those observed in the experimental task. Second, the model's RPEs were similar to dopamine activity in respective response groups. Finally, goal-tracking, but not sign-tracking, responses rapidly emerged when RPE was restored in the simulated models, similar to experiments with recovery from dopamine-antagonist. These results suggest two complementary neural correlates, corresponding to the cue and its evoked reward, form the basis for learning reward predictions in the sign- and goal-tracking rats.