If reward-associated cues acquire the properties of incentive stimuli they can come to powerfully control behavior, and potentially promote maladaptive behavior. Pavlovian incentive stimuli are defined as stimuli that have three fundamental properties: they are attractive, they are themselves desired, and they can spur instrumental actions. We have found, however, that there is considerable individual variation in the extent to which animals attribute Pavlovian incentive motivational properties (“incentive salience”) to reward cues. The purpose of this paper was to develop criteria for identifying and classifying individuals based on their propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. To do this, we conducted a meta-analysis of a large sample of rats (N = 1,878) subjected to a classic Pavlovian conditioning procedure. We then used the propensity of animals to approach a cue predictive of reward (one index of the extent to which the cue was attributed with incentive salience), to characterize two behavioral phenotypes in this population: animals that approached the cue (“sign-trackers”) vs. others that approached the location of reward delivery (“goal-trackers”). This variation in Pavlovian approach behavior predicted other behavioral indices of the propensity to attribute incentive salience to reward cues. Thus, the procedures reported here should be useful for making comparisons across studies and for assessing individual variation in incentive salience attribution in small samples of the population, or even for classifying single animals.

Even when trained under exactly the same conditions outbred male Sprague-Dawley (SD) rats vary in the form of the Pavlovian conditioned approach response (CR) they acquire. The form of the CR (i.e. sign-tracking vs. goal-tracking) predicts to what degree individuals attribute incentive salience to cues associated with food or drugs. However, we have noticed variation in the incidence of these two phenotypes in rats obtained from different vendors. In this study, we quantified sign- and goal-tracking behavior in a reasonably large sample of SD rats obtained from two vendors (Harlan or Charles River), as well as from individual colonies operated by both vendors. Our sample of rats acquired from Harlan had, on average, more sign-trackers than goal-trackers, and vice versa for our sample of rats acquired from Charles River. Furthermore, there were significant differences among colonies of the same vendor. Although it is impossible to rule out environmental variables, SD rats at different vendors and barriers may have reduced phenotypic heterogeneity as a result of genetic variables, such as random genetic drift or population bottlenecks. Consistent with this hypothesis, we identified marked population structure among colonies from Harlan. Therefore, despite sharing the same name, investigators should be aware that important genetic and phenotypic differences exist among SD rats from different vendors or even from different colonies of the same vendor. If used judiciously this can be an asset to experimental design, but it can also be a pitfall for those unaware of the issue.

Individuals vary in the extent to which they attribute incentive salience to a discrete cue (conditioned stimulus; CS) that predicts reward delivery (unconditioned stimulus; US), which results in some individuals approaching and interacting with the CS (sign-trackers; STs) more than others (goal-trackers; GTs). Here we asked how periods of non-reinforcement influence conditioned responding in STs vs. GTs, in both Pavlovian and instrumental tasks. After classifying rats as STs or GTs by pairing a retractable lever (the CS) with the delivery of a food pellet (US), we introduced periods of non-reinforcement, first by simply withholding the US (i.e., extinction training; experiment 1), then by signaling alternating periods of reward (R) and non-reward (NR) within the same session (experiments 2 and 3). We also examined how alternating R and NR periods influenced instrumental responding for food (experiment 4). STs and GTs did not differ in their ability to discriminate between R and NR periods in the instrumental task. However, in Pavlovian settings STs and GTs responded to periods of non-reward very differently. Relative to STs, GTs very rapidly modified their behavior in response to periods of non-reward, showing much faster extinction and better and faster discrimination between R and NR conditions. These results highlight differences between Pavlovian and instrumental extinction learning, and suggest that if a Pavlovian CS is strongly attributed with incentive salience, as in STs, it may continue to bias attention toward it, and to facilitate persistent and relatively inflexible responding, even when it is no longer followed by reward.