Limits...
Alcohol-Preferring Rats Show Goal Oriented Behaviour to Food Incentives but Are Neither Sign-Trackers Nor Impulsive.

Peña-Oliver Y, Giuliano C, Economidou D, Goodlett CR, Robbins TW, Dalley JW, Everitt BJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

Bottom Line: Drug addiction is often associated with impulsivity and altered behavioural responses to both primary and conditioned rewards.These findings indicate that high alcohol preferring and drinking P rats are neither intrinsically impulsive nor do they exhibit impulsivity after exposure to alcohol.However, P rats do show increased goal-directed behaviour to food incentives and this may be associated with their strong preference for alcohol.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology and Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing St, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Drug addiction is often associated with impulsivity and altered behavioural responses to both primary and conditioned rewards. Here we investigated whether selectively bred alcohol-preferring (P) and alcohol-nonpreferring (NP) rats show differential levels of impulsivity and conditioned behavioural responses to food incentives. P and NP rats were assessed for impulsivity in the 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT), a widely used translational task in humans and other animals, as well as Pavlovian conditioned approach to measure sign- and goal-tracking behaviour. Drug-naïve P and NP rats showed similar levels of impulsivity on the 5-CSRTT, assessed by the number of premature, anticipatory responses, even when the waiting interval to respond was increased. However, unlike NP rats, P rats were faster to enter the food magazine and spent more time in this area. In addition, P rats showed higher levels of goal-tracking responses than NP rats, as measured by the number of magazine nose-pokes during the presentation of a food conditioned stimulus. By contrast, NP showed higher levels of sign-tracking behaviour than P rats. Following a 4-week exposure to intermittent alcohol we confirmed that P rats had a marked preference for, and consumed more alcohol than, NP rats, but were not more impulsive when re-tested in the 5-CSRTT. These findings indicate that high alcohol preferring and drinking P rats are neither intrinsically impulsive nor do they exhibit impulsivity after exposure to alcohol. However, P rats do show increased goal-directed behaviour to food incentives and this may be associated with their strong preference for alcohol.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

5-CSRTT.Performance of alcohol-preferring rats (P, closed squares) and alcohol-non-preferring rats (NP, open circles) in the 5-CSRTT, during baseline sessions (ITI = 5s) and during the long ITI challenge session (ITI = 7s) before and after the 4-week alcohol intake. Data are means ± SE of % premature responding (a), attentional accuracy (b), % omissions (c), correct response latency (d), food magazine latency (e) and time spend nose-poking in the food magazine (f). All p<0.05: (≠) vs baseline A, (σ) vs previous sessions; (*) significant difference between P and NP rats in the same session; (•) vs baseline A in P rats, (∞) vs baseline A and B; (x) versus pre-alcohol sessions in NP rats.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4476783&req=5

pone.0131016.g001: 5-CSRTT.Performance of alcohol-preferring rats (P, closed squares) and alcohol-non-preferring rats (NP, open circles) in the 5-CSRTT, during baseline sessions (ITI = 5s) and during the long ITI challenge session (ITI = 7s) before and after the 4-week alcohol intake. Data are means ± SE of % premature responding (a), attentional accuracy (b), % omissions (c), correct response latency (d), food magazine latency (e) and time spend nose-poking in the food magazine (f). All p<0.05: (≠) vs baseline A, (σ) vs previous sessions; (*) significant difference between P and NP rats in the same session; (•) vs baseline A in P rats, (∞) vs baseline A and B; (x) versus pre-alcohol sessions in NP rats.

Mentions: There were no statistical differences in the number of sessions required to achieve baseline performance criteria (NP: 33.54 ± 1.2, P: 31.67 ± 1.8, χ2(1) = .308, n.s.). P and NP rats showed no significant difference in premature responses during the baseline and long ITI challenge sessions (group x session interaction: F2,52 = .325, n.s; group: F1,26 = .138, n.s; Fig 1A). Both P and NP rats showed increased premature responding during the long ITI session (session: F2,52 = 141.981, p<0.001, ε = .566) but this increase was no different between groups nor was it significantly modulated by 4-weeks of alcohol exposure, despite P rats consuming significantly more ethanol than NP rats (see below). Attentional accuracy (Fig 1B) and omissions (Fig 1C) were also generally unaffected by phenotypic status and ethanol exposure. Thus, although accuracy decreased during the long ITI session and increased during the following baseline session these changes were no different between P and NP rats. Omissions increased significantly in both groups during the final baseline session but this change was small and not different between P and NP rats. However, correct response latencies were differentially affected in P and NP rats (group x session interaction: F2,52 = 5.14, p<0.01, Fig 1D) with ethanol-exposed P rats being significantly faster to respond than NP rats during the long ITI session (p<0.05).


Alcohol-Preferring Rats Show Goal Oriented Behaviour to Food Incentives but Are Neither Sign-Trackers Nor Impulsive.

Peña-Oliver Y, Giuliano C, Economidou D, Goodlett CR, Robbins TW, Dalley JW, Everitt BJ - PLoS ONE (2015)

5-CSRTT.Performance of alcohol-preferring rats (P, closed squares) and alcohol-non-preferring rats (NP, open circles) in the 5-CSRTT, during baseline sessions (ITI = 5s) and during the long ITI challenge session (ITI = 7s) before and after the 4-week alcohol intake. Data are means ± SE of % premature responding (a), attentional accuracy (b), % omissions (c), correct response latency (d), food magazine latency (e) and time spend nose-poking in the food magazine (f). All p<0.05: (≠) vs baseline A, (σ) vs previous sessions; (*) significant difference between P and NP rats in the same session; (•) vs baseline A in P rats, (∞) vs baseline A and B; (x) versus pre-alcohol sessions in NP rats.
© Copyright Policy
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4476783&req=5

pone.0131016.g001: 5-CSRTT.Performance of alcohol-preferring rats (P, closed squares) and alcohol-non-preferring rats (NP, open circles) in the 5-CSRTT, during baseline sessions (ITI = 5s) and during the long ITI challenge session (ITI = 7s) before and after the 4-week alcohol intake. Data are means ± SE of % premature responding (a), attentional accuracy (b), % omissions (c), correct response latency (d), food magazine latency (e) and time spend nose-poking in the food magazine (f). All p<0.05: (≠) vs baseline A, (σ) vs previous sessions; (*) significant difference between P and NP rats in the same session; (•) vs baseline A in P rats, (∞) vs baseline A and B; (x) versus pre-alcohol sessions in NP rats.
Mentions: There were no statistical differences in the number of sessions required to achieve baseline performance criteria (NP: 33.54 ± 1.2, P: 31.67 ± 1.8, χ2(1) = .308, n.s.). P and NP rats showed no significant difference in premature responses during the baseline and long ITI challenge sessions (group x session interaction: F2,52 = .325, n.s; group: F1,26 = .138, n.s; Fig 1A). Both P and NP rats showed increased premature responding during the long ITI session (session: F2,52 = 141.981, p<0.001, ε = .566) but this increase was no different between groups nor was it significantly modulated by 4-weeks of alcohol exposure, despite P rats consuming significantly more ethanol than NP rats (see below). Attentional accuracy (Fig 1B) and omissions (Fig 1C) were also generally unaffected by phenotypic status and ethanol exposure. Thus, although accuracy decreased during the long ITI session and increased during the following baseline session these changes were no different between P and NP rats. Omissions increased significantly in both groups during the final baseline session but this change was small and not different between P and NP rats. However, correct response latencies were differentially affected in P and NP rats (group x session interaction: F2,52 = 5.14, p<0.01, Fig 1D) with ethanol-exposed P rats being significantly faster to respond than NP rats during the long ITI session (p<0.05).

Bottom Line: Drug addiction is often associated with impulsivity and altered behavioural responses to both primary and conditioned rewards.These findings indicate that high alcohol preferring and drinking P rats are neither intrinsically impulsive nor do they exhibit impulsivity after exposure to alcohol.However, P rats do show increased goal-directed behaviour to food incentives and this may be associated with their strong preference for alcohol.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: Department of Psychology and Behavioural and Clinical Neuroscience Institute, University of Cambridge, Downing St, Cambridge, United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT
Drug addiction is often associated with impulsivity and altered behavioural responses to both primary and conditioned rewards. Here we investigated whether selectively bred alcohol-preferring (P) and alcohol-nonpreferring (NP) rats show differential levels of impulsivity and conditioned behavioural responses to food incentives. P and NP rats were assessed for impulsivity in the 5-choice serial reaction time task (5-CSRTT), a widely used translational task in humans and other animals, as well as Pavlovian conditioned approach to measure sign- and goal-tracking behaviour. Drug-naïve P and NP rats showed similar levels of impulsivity on the 5-CSRTT, assessed by the number of premature, anticipatory responses, even when the waiting interval to respond was increased. However, unlike NP rats, P rats were faster to enter the food magazine and spent more time in this area. In addition, P rats showed higher levels of goal-tracking responses than NP rats, as measured by the number of magazine nose-pokes during the presentation of a food conditioned stimulus. By contrast, NP showed higher levels of sign-tracking behaviour than P rats. Following a 4-week exposure to intermittent alcohol we confirmed that P rats had a marked preference for, and consumed more alcohol than, NP rats, but were not more impulsive when re-tested in the 5-CSRTT. These findings indicate that high alcohol preferring and drinking P rats are neither intrinsically impulsive nor do they exhibit impulsivity after exposure to alcohol. However, P rats do show increased goal-directed behaviour to food incentives and this may be associated with their strong preference for alcohol.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus