Limits...
Motivational salience and genetic variability of dopamine D2 receptor expression interact in the modulation of interference processing.

Richter A, Richter S, Barman A, Soch J, Klein M, Assmann A, Libeau C, Behnisch G, Wüstenberg T, Seidenbecher CI, Schott BH - Front Hum Neurosci (2013)

Bottom Line: Dopamine has been implicated in the fine-tuning of complex cognitive and motor function and also in the anticipation of future rewards.Participants performed a flanker task with a motivation manipulation (monetary reward, monetary loss, neither, or both).Our results point to a role for genetic variations of the dopaminergic system in individual differences of cognition-motivation interaction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Behavioral Neurology and Department of Neurochemistry and Molecular Biology, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology Magdeburg, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Dopamine has been implicated in the fine-tuning of complex cognitive and motor function and also in the anticipation of future rewards. This dual function of dopamine suggests that dopamine might be involved in the generation of active motivated behavior. The DRD2 TaqIA polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor gene (rs1800497) has previously been suggested to affect striatal function with carriers of the less common A1 allele exhibiting reduced striatal D2 receptor density and increased risk for addiction. Here we aimed to investigate the influences of DRD2 TaqIA genotype on the modulation of interference processing by reward and punishment. Forty-six young, healthy volunteers participated in a behavioral experiment, and 32 underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants performed a flanker task with a motivation manipulation (monetary reward, monetary loss, neither, or both). Reaction times (RTs) were shorter in motivated flanker trials, irrespective of congruency. In the fMRI experiment motivation was associated with reduced prefrontal activation during incongruent vs. congruent flanker trials, possibly reflecting increased processing efficiency. DRD2 TaqIA genotype did not affect overall RTs, but interacted with motivation on the congruency-related RT differences, with A1 carriers showing smaller interference effects to reward alone and A2 homozygotes exhibiting a specific interference reduction during combined reward (REW) and punishment trials (PUN). In fMRI, anterior cingulate activity showed a similar pattern of genotype-related modulation. Additionally, A1 carriers showed increased anterior insula activation relative to A2 homozygotes. Our results point to a role for genetic variations of the dopaminergic system in individual differences of cognition-motivation interaction.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Behavioral congruency effect. Plots depict the difference between incongruent and congruent RTs for each motivation condition (± standard errors). Data from both experiments (behavioral and fMRI) are combined. Higher values indicate stronger distractor interference. The observed pattern suggests that A1 carries showed a small to moderate reduction of the RT difference (incongruent vs. congruent) in all motivated trials, particularly in the reward condition, whereas the RT difference reduction in A2 carriers was largely restricted to the combined condition [genotype by motivation interaction: F(3, 228) = 2.96; p = 0.039]. NEU, neutral condition; REW, reward condition; PUN, punishment condition; COM, combined reward and punishment condition.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3672681&req=5

Figure 2: Behavioral congruency effect. Plots depict the difference between incongruent and congruent RTs for each motivation condition (± standard errors). Data from both experiments (behavioral and fMRI) are combined. Higher values indicate stronger distractor interference. The observed pattern suggests that A1 carries showed a small to moderate reduction of the RT difference (incongruent vs. congruent) in all motivated trials, particularly in the reward condition, whereas the RT difference reduction in A2 carriers was largely restricted to the combined condition [genotype by motivation interaction: F(3, 228) = 2.96; p = 0.039]. NEU, neutral condition; REW, reward condition; PUN, punishment condition; COM, combined reward and punishment condition.

Mentions: To specifically test for effects of genotype on interference processing and its modulation by motivational salience, we computed the behavioral congruency effects, i.e., the differences of error rates and RTs between incongruent and congruent trials, separated by motivation conditions. These values were the dependent variables in ANOVAs for repeated measures with motivation condition (NEU vs. REW vs. PUN vs. COM) as within-subject factor with four levels, and DRD2 TaqIA genotype (A1+ vs. A2/A2) as between-subject factor with two levels. The analysis of error rates revealed no significant effects of either factors motivation or genotype (all p > 0.120), but in the analysis of congruency-related RT differences, a significant motivation by genotype interaction was observed in the behavioral experiment [F(3, 132) = 3.07, p = 0.039]. While this interaction effect was not significant in the (smaller) cohort of the fMRI experiment, it remained significant when combining the data of both experiments [F(3, 225) = 2.96, p = 0.039; because of the differences in experimental design, the experiment—behavioral vs. fMRI—was included as a covariate of no interest in this ANOVA]. To explore the pattern underlying this interaction, we computed post-hoc paired T-tests on the RT congruency effects in the different motivation conditions, separated by DRD2 TaqIA genotype. Results of the post-hoc comparisons are displayed in Table 3 (both studies combined) and in Table A1 (both studies separately; note that post-hoc comparisons from the fMRI experiment are for illustrative purpose only, given the lack of an interaction effect in the ANOVA). In summary, the results of the post-hoc tests, albeit exploratory, suggest that A1 homozygotes showed a reduced congruency effect primarily in the rewarded condition (significant in the behavioral study only, see Table A1) and nominally benefitted from all motivated conditions, whereas A2 homozygotes showed smaller congruency-related RT differences in the combined condition relative to the conditions with reward or punishment alone (Figure 2, Tables 3, A1).


Motivational salience and genetic variability of dopamine D2 receptor expression interact in the modulation of interference processing.

Richter A, Richter S, Barman A, Soch J, Klein M, Assmann A, Libeau C, Behnisch G, Wüstenberg T, Seidenbecher CI, Schott BH - Front Hum Neurosci (2013)

Behavioral congruency effect. Plots depict the difference between incongruent and congruent RTs for each motivation condition (± standard errors). Data from both experiments (behavioral and fMRI) are combined. Higher values indicate stronger distractor interference. The observed pattern suggests that A1 carries showed a small to moderate reduction of the RT difference (incongruent vs. congruent) in all motivated trials, particularly in the reward condition, whereas the RT difference reduction in A2 carriers was largely restricted to the combined condition [genotype by motivation interaction: F(3, 228) = 2.96; p = 0.039]. NEU, neutral condition; REW, reward condition; PUN, punishment condition; COM, combined reward and punishment condition.
© Copyright Policy - open-access
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC3672681&req=5

Figure 2: Behavioral congruency effect. Plots depict the difference between incongruent and congruent RTs for each motivation condition (± standard errors). Data from both experiments (behavioral and fMRI) are combined. Higher values indicate stronger distractor interference. The observed pattern suggests that A1 carries showed a small to moderate reduction of the RT difference (incongruent vs. congruent) in all motivated trials, particularly in the reward condition, whereas the RT difference reduction in A2 carriers was largely restricted to the combined condition [genotype by motivation interaction: F(3, 228) = 2.96; p = 0.039]. NEU, neutral condition; REW, reward condition; PUN, punishment condition; COM, combined reward and punishment condition.
Mentions: To specifically test for effects of genotype on interference processing and its modulation by motivational salience, we computed the behavioral congruency effects, i.e., the differences of error rates and RTs between incongruent and congruent trials, separated by motivation conditions. These values were the dependent variables in ANOVAs for repeated measures with motivation condition (NEU vs. REW vs. PUN vs. COM) as within-subject factor with four levels, and DRD2 TaqIA genotype (A1+ vs. A2/A2) as between-subject factor with two levels. The analysis of error rates revealed no significant effects of either factors motivation or genotype (all p > 0.120), but in the analysis of congruency-related RT differences, a significant motivation by genotype interaction was observed in the behavioral experiment [F(3, 132) = 3.07, p = 0.039]. While this interaction effect was not significant in the (smaller) cohort of the fMRI experiment, it remained significant when combining the data of both experiments [F(3, 225) = 2.96, p = 0.039; because of the differences in experimental design, the experiment—behavioral vs. fMRI—was included as a covariate of no interest in this ANOVA]. To explore the pattern underlying this interaction, we computed post-hoc paired T-tests on the RT congruency effects in the different motivation conditions, separated by DRD2 TaqIA genotype. Results of the post-hoc comparisons are displayed in Table 3 (both studies combined) and in Table A1 (both studies separately; note that post-hoc comparisons from the fMRI experiment are for illustrative purpose only, given the lack of an interaction effect in the ANOVA). In summary, the results of the post-hoc tests, albeit exploratory, suggest that A1 homozygotes showed a reduced congruency effect primarily in the rewarded condition (significant in the behavioral study only, see Table A1) and nominally benefitted from all motivated conditions, whereas A2 homozygotes showed smaller congruency-related RT differences in the combined condition relative to the conditions with reward or punishment alone (Figure 2, Tables 3, A1).

Bottom Line: Dopamine has been implicated in the fine-tuning of complex cognitive and motor function and also in the anticipation of future rewards.Participants performed a flanker task with a motivation manipulation (monetary reward, monetary loss, neither, or both).Our results point to a role for genetic variations of the dopaminergic system in individual differences of cognition-motivation interaction.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Behavioral Neurology and Department of Neurochemistry and Molecular Biology, Leibniz Institute for Neurobiology Magdeburg, Germany.

ABSTRACT
Dopamine has been implicated in the fine-tuning of complex cognitive and motor function and also in the anticipation of future rewards. This dual function of dopamine suggests that dopamine might be involved in the generation of active motivated behavior. The DRD2 TaqIA polymorphism of the dopamine D2 receptor gene (rs1800497) has previously been suggested to affect striatal function with carriers of the less common A1 allele exhibiting reduced striatal D2 receptor density and increased risk for addiction. Here we aimed to investigate the influences of DRD2 TaqIA genotype on the modulation of interference processing by reward and punishment. Forty-six young, healthy volunteers participated in a behavioral experiment, and 32 underwent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI). Participants performed a flanker task with a motivation manipulation (monetary reward, monetary loss, neither, or both). Reaction times (RTs) were shorter in motivated flanker trials, irrespective of congruency. In the fMRI experiment motivation was associated with reduced prefrontal activation during incongruent vs. congruent flanker trials, possibly reflecting increased processing efficiency. DRD2 TaqIA genotype did not affect overall RTs, but interacted with motivation on the congruency-related RT differences, with A1 carriers showing smaller interference effects to reward alone and A2 homozygotes exhibiting a specific interference reduction during combined reward (REW) and punishment trials (PUN). In fMRI, anterior cingulate activity showed a similar pattern of genotype-related modulation. Additionally, A1 carriers showed increased anterior insula activation relative to A2 homozygotes. Our results point to a role for genetic variations of the dopaminergic system in individual differences of cognition-motivation interaction.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus