Caution Influences Avoidance and Approach Behaviors Differently

Abstract

While conflict between incompatible goals has well-known effects on actions, in many situations the same action may produce harmful or beneficial consequences during different periods in a nonconflicting manner, e.g., crossing the street during a red or green light. To avoid harm, subjects must be cautious to inhibit the action specifically when it is punished, as in passive avoidance, but act when it is beneficial, as in active avoidance or active approach. In mice of both sexes performing a signaled action to avoid harm or obtain reward, we found that addition of a new rule that punishes the action when it occurs unsignaled delays the timing of the signaled action in an apparent sign of increased caution. Caution depended on task signaling, contingency, and reinforcement type. Interestingly, caution became persistent when the signaled action was avoidance motivated by danger but was only transient when it was approach motivated by reward. Although caution is represented by the activity of neurons in the midbrain, it developed independent of frontal cortex or basal ganglia output circuits. These results indicate that caution disrupts actions in different ways depending on the motivational state and may develop from unforeseen brain circuits.

Punishment Risk Task: Monitoring anxiogenic states during goal directed actions in mice

“…This increased variance could be characterized as a measure of "hesitancy" or "caution" during this reward seeking behavior. Indeed, a recent study found that mice delayed their action for a signaled reward when a new, unsignaled rule that punished the action was added 42 . However, the interpretation from that study suggested that this "caution" is not due to an anxiogenic state as it is unaffected by diazepam administration 42 .…”

“…Indeed, a recent study found that mice delayed their action for a signaled reward when a new, unsignaled rule that punished the action was added 42 . However, the interpretation from that study suggested that this “caution” is not due to an anxiogenic state as it is unaffected by diazepam administration 42 . This discrepancy is likely due to multiple different factors: apparatus (shuttle box vs. operant box), animal state (water-restricted vs. food-restricted), reward (water vs. sweetened pellet), and the probability of punishment (1.00 vs 0.13).…”

Zona incerta distributes a broad movement signal that modulates behavior

“…If the animal fails to avoid during the CS, the US is presented causing a rapid escape to the other compartment, which eliminates the US and initiates a random intertrial interval until the next trial. In AA1, mice are free to shuttle between the cage compartments during the random intertrial interval that separates CS presentations; intertrial crossings (ITCs; cyan filled bars; Figure 6B ) have no consequence ( Hormigo et al, 2021b ; Zhou et al, 2022 ). The AA2 procedure is identical to AA1 but ITCs are punished; mice must inhibit their tendency to shuttle between CS presentations during the intertrial interval (unsignaled passive avoidance).…”

“…The AA2 procedure is identical to AA1 but ITCs are punished; mice must inhibit their tendency to shuttle between CS presentations during the intertrial interval (unsignaled passive avoidance). This produces a more cautious behavioral state compared to AA1 ( Zhou et al, 2022 ). The AA3 procedure is a more challenging discrimination procedure with two different CS’s presented randomly, and ITCs are not punished.…”

Role of the nucleus accumbens in signaled avoidance actions

“…During AA2, ITCs are punished. Consequently, avoid latencies shift longer in an apparent reflection of caution (Zhou et al, 2022). During AA3, animals learn to discriminate between two CS's, passively avoiding when AA3-CS2 is presented.…”