Limits...
The form of a conditioned stimulus can influence the degree to which it acquires incentive motivational properties.

Meyer PJ, Cogan ES, Robinson TE - PLoS ONE (2014)

Bottom Line: There is considerable individual variation in the extent to which food- and drug-associated cues (conditioned stimuli, CSs) acquire incentive salience, as indicated by whether they elicit approach towards them, and/or act as conditioned reinforcers.Even when presented in compound (a lever-tone CS), the two elements of the compound differentially acquired motivational properties.We conclude that variation in the to the ability of CSs to acquire incentive salience, and thus their ability to act as incentive stimuli capable of motivating behavior, is determined in part by properties of the CS itself.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
There is considerable individual variation in the extent to which food- and drug-associated cues (conditioned stimuli, CSs) acquire incentive salience, as indicated by whether they elicit approach towards them, and/or act as conditioned reinforcers. Here we asked whether this variation is influenced by properties of the CS itself. In rats, we assessed both the attractiveness and conditioned reinforcing properties of two CSs: a manipulable lever CS versus an auditory (tone) CS. There was considerable individual variation in the extent to which a lever CS acquired incentive motivational properties, as indicated by whether it became attractive (evoked a sign-tracking or goal-tracking conditioned response) or acted as a conditioned reinforcer. However, with a tone CS all rats learned a goal-tracking response, and the tone CS was an equally effective conditioned reinforcer in sign-trackers and goal-trackers. Even when presented in compound (a lever-tone CS), the two elements of the compound differentially acquired motivational properties. In contrast, amphetamine and stress potentiated the conditioned reinforcing properties of both visual and auditory CSs similarly in rats that primarily sign-tracked or goal-tracked. We conclude that variation in the to the ability of CSs to acquire incentive salience, and thus their ability to act as incentive stimuli capable of motivating behavior, is determined in part by properties of the CS itself.

Show MeSH

Related in: MedlinePlus

The lever, but not the auditory, component of a compound CS are differentially reinforcing in sign-trackers (ST), but not goal-trackers (GT).Rats nose-poked for either the lever component or the auditory component of the compound CS in separate conditioned reinforcement tests. STs, GTs, and intermediates (IN) did not differ in nose-pokes that were reinforced by the tone component of the CS (panel A), but STs made more nose-pokes for the lever component (panel B). STs approached the lever more often than GTs during the conditioned reinforcement test (Panel C). The PCA index was significantly correlated with the reinforcing efficacy of the lever component of the CS, but not the auditory component (Panels D and E). Asterisks indicate significant differences compared to goal-trackers (p<0.05). Data are represented as mean (± SEM).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4048203&req=5

pone-0098163-g004: The lever, but not the auditory, component of a compound CS are differentially reinforcing in sign-trackers (ST), but not goal-trackers (GT).Rats nose-poked for either the lever component or the auditory component of the compound CS in separate conditioned reinforcement tests. STs, GTs, and intermediates (IN) did not differ in nose-pokes that were reinforced by the tone component of the CS (panel A), but STs made more nose-pokes for the lever component (panel B). STs approached the lever more often than GTs during the conditioned reinforcement test (Panel C). The PCA index was significantly correlated with the reinforcing efficacy of the lever component of the CS, but not the auditory component (Panels D and E). Asterisks indicate significant differences compared to goal-trackers (p<0.05). Data are represented as mean (± SEM).

Mentions: Next, the acquired reinforcing efficacy of the tone vs. lever elements of the compound CS were assessed during separate conditioned reinforcement tests (Fig. 4A). Both the tone and lever components of the compound CS were effective reinforcers, but the lever was a more effective reinforcer than the tone (Fig. 4A). This may have been due to order and/or overshadowing effects [54], but nevertheless, it is consistent with a recent report that a lever CS is more effective conditioned reinforcer than an auditory CS, even when presented separately in the same training session [55].


The form of a conditioned stimulus can influence the degree to which it acquires incentive motivational properties.

Meyer PJ, Cogan ES, Robinson TE - PLoS ONE (2014)

The lever, but not the auditory, component of a compound CS are differentially reinforcing in sign-trackers (ST), but not goal-trackers (GT).Rats nose-poked for either the lever component or the auditory component of the compound CS in separate conditioned reinforcement tests. STs, GTs, and intermediates (IN) did not differ in nose-pokes that were reinforced by the tone component of the CS (panel A), but STs made more nose-pokes for the lever component (panel B). STs approached the lever more often than GTs during the conditioned reinforcement test (Panel C). The PCA index was significantly correlated with the reinforcing efficacy of the lever component of the CS, but not the auditory component (Panels D and E). Asterisks indicate significant differences compared to goal-trackers (p<0.05). Data are represented as mean (± SEM).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4048203&req=5

pone-0098163-g004: The lever, but not the auditory, component of a compound CS are differentially reinforcing in sign-trackers (ST), but not goal-trackers (GT).Rats nose-poked for either the lever component or the auditory component of the compound CS in separate conditioned reinforcement tests. STs, GTs, and intermediates (IN) did not differ in nose-pokes that were reinforced by the tone component of the CS (panel A), but STs made more nose-pokes for the lever component (panel B). STs approached the lever more often than GTs during the conditioned reinforcement test (Panel C). The PCA index was significantly correlated with the reinforcing efficacy of the lever component of the CS, but not the auditory component (Panels D and E). Asterisks indicate significant differences compared to goal-trackers (p<0.05). Data are represented as mean (± SEM).
Mentions: Next, the acquired reinforcing efficacy of the tone vs. lever elements of the compound CS were assessed during separate conditioned reinforcement tests (Fig. 4A). Both the tone and lever components of the compound CS were effective reinforcers, but the lever was a more effective reinforcer than the tone (Fig. 4A). This may have been due to order and/or overshadowing effects [54], but nevertheless, it is consistent with a recent report that a lever CS is more effective conditioned reinforcer than an auditory CS, even when presented separately in the same training session [55].

Bottom Line: There is considerable individual variation in the extent to which food- and drug-associated cues (conditioned stimuli, CSs) acquire incentive salience, as indicated by whether they elicit approach towards them, and/or act as conditioned reinforcers.Even when presented in compound (a lever-tone CS), the two elements of the compound differentially acquired motivational properties.We conclude that variation in the to the ability of CSs to acquire incentive salience, and thus their ability to act as incentive stimuli capable of motivating behavior, is determined in part by properties of the CS itself.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America.

ABSTRACT
There is considerable individual variation in the extent to which food- and drug-associated cues (conditioned stimuli, CSs) acquire incentive salience, as indicated by whether they elicit approach towards them, and/or act as conditioned reinforcers. Here we asked whether this variation is influenced by properties of the CS itself. In rats, we assessed both the attractiveness and conditioned reinforcing properties of two CSs: a manipulable lever CS versus an auditory (tone) CS. There was considerable individual variation in the extent to which a lever CS acquired incentive motivational properties, as indicated by whether it became attractive (evoked a sign-tracking or goal-tracking conditioned response) or acted as a conditioned reinforcer. However, with a tone CS all rats learned a goal-tracking response, and the tone CS was an equally effective conditioned reinforcer in sign-trackers and goal-trackers. Even when presented in compound (a lever-tone CS), the two elements of the compound differentially acquired motivational properties. In contrast, amphetamine and stress potentiated the conditioned reinforcing properties of both visual and auditory CSs similarly in rats that primarily sign-tracked or goal-tracked. We conclude that variation in the to the ability of CSs to acquire incentive salience, and thus their ability to act as incentive stimuli capable of motivating behavior, is determined in part by properties of the CS itself.

Show MeSH
Related in: MedlinePlus