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

Amphetamine increases the reinforcing efficacy of the lever-cue equally in sign-trackers (ST), and goal-trackers (GT).Panel A demonstrates that STs responded more for the lever CS than GTs, and that amphetamine enhanced this conditioned reinforcement similarly in STs and GTs. Panel B shows that STs had more lever contacts than GTs, which was enhanced by the lower dose of amphetamine only in STs. Data are represented as mean (± SEM). There were no significant differences between STs and GTs. Asterisks denotes a significant increase compared to the saline-treated rats (0.00 dose).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone-0098163-g007: Amphetamine increases the reinforcing efficacy of the lever-cue equally in sign-trackers (ST), and goal-trackers (GT).Panel A demonstrates that STs responded more for the lever CS than GTs, and that amphetamine enhanced this conditioned reinforcement similarly in STs and GTs. Panel B shows that STs had more lever contacts than GTs, which was enhanced by the lower dose of amphetamine only in STs. Data are represented as mean (± SEM). There were no significant differences between STs and GTs. Asterisks denotes a significant increase compared to the saline-treated rats (0.00 dose).

Mentions: Out of the 120 rats tested for PCA, 50 STs and 42 GTs were identified (data not shown). As in experiment 2, and in previous studies (e.g., Robinson and Flagel, 2009), under control conditions (following treatment with saline) the lever CS was more effective as a conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs [Fig. 7A; F (2, 86) = 3.4, p<0.05 for the Phenotype x Port interaction, followed by Fisher's post-hoc test, p<0.05)]. Amphetamine potentiated the conditioned reinforcing effects of the lever CS [F (2, 86) = 4.0, p<0.05 for main effect of Dose], but there were no group differences in this effect of amphetamine (ps>0.05 for the interaction between Phenotype and Dose, Fig. 7A). As expected, during the conditioned reinforcement test, STs deflected the lever more than GTs, even though it was presented for only 3 sec [F (1, 86) = 60.2, p<0.001 for the main effect of Phenotype], but there were no statistically significant effects of amphetamine or interactions with Phenotype on lever contacts during the conditioned reinforcement test (ps>0.05).


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)

Amphetamine increases the reinforcing efficacy of the lever-cue equally in sign-trackers (ST), and goal-trackers (GT).Panel A demonstrates that STs responded more for the lever CS than GTs, and that amphetamine enhanced this conditioned reinforcement similarly in STs and GTs. Panel B shows that STs had more lever contacts than GTs, which was enhanced by the lower dose of amphetamine only in STs. Data are represented as mean (± SEM). There were no significant differences between STs and GTs. Asterisks denotes a significant increase compared to the saline-treated rats (0.00 dose).
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

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

pone-0098163-g007: Amphetamine increases the reinforcing efficacy of the lever-cue equally in sign-trackers (ST), and goal-trackers (GT).Panel A demonstrates that STs responded more for the lever CS than GTs, and that amphetamine enhanced this conditioned reinforcement similarly in STs and GTs. Panel B shows that STs had more lever contacts than GTs, which was enhanced by the lower dose of amphetamine only in STs. Data are represented as mean (± SEM). There were no significant differences between STs and GTs. Asterisks denotes a significant increase compared to the saline-treated rats (0.00 dose).
Mentions: Out of the 120 rats tested for PCA, 50 STs and 42 GTs were identified (data not shown). As in experiment 2, and in previous studies (e.g., Robinson and Flagel, 2009), under control conditions (following treatment with saline) the lever CS was more effective as a conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs [Fig. 7A; F (2, 86) = 3.4, p<0.05 for the Phenotype x Port interaction, followed by Fisher's post-hoc test, p<0.05)]. Amphetamine potentiated the conditioned reinforcing effects of the lever CS [F (2, 86) = 4.0, p<0.05 for main effect of Dose], but there were no group differences in this effect of amphetamine (ps>0.05 for the interaction between Phenotype and Dose, Fig. 7A). As expected, during the conditioned reinforcement test, STs deflected the lever more than GTs, even though it was presented for only 3 sec [F (1, 86) = 60.2, p<0.001 for the main effect of Phenotype], but there were no statistically significant effects of amphetamine or interactions with Phenotype on lever contacts during the conditioned reinforcement test (ps>0.05).

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