From attention to memory along the dorsal-ventral axis of the medial prefrontal cortex: some methodological considerations

Cassaday, Helen J.; Nelson, Andrew John Dudley; Pezze, Marie A.

doi:10.3389/fnsys.2014.00160

Cited by 47 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 206 publications

(384 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Although this model has been important in developing experiments to probe the function of the PFC in drug abuse and addiction, this go/stop dichotomy likely represents an overly simplistic framework. The prefrontal cortex is a massively complex collection of brain regions, all of which perform a wide variety of cognitive functions (Bissonette et al, 2013; Cassaday et al, 2014; Dalley et al, 2004; De Bruin et al, 2000; Kesner and Churchwell, 2011; Miller and Cohen, 2001; St Onge and Floresco, 2010). Consequently, there have been a growing number of studies that do not support a PL/IL dichotomy along the lines of behavioral expression/inhibition.…”

Section: Evidence For An Imperfect Mapping Between Pl/il and Go/stopmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential roles of medial prefrontal subregions in the regulation of drug seeking

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prefrontal cortex plays an important role in shaping cognition and behavior. Many studies have shown that medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) plays a key role in seeking, extinction, and reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rodent models of relapse. Subregions of mPFC appear to play distinct roles in these behaviors, such that the prelimbic cortex (PL) is proposed to drive cocaine seeking and the infralimbic cortex (IL) is proposed to suppress cocaine seeking after extinction. This dichotomy of mPFC function may be a general attribute, as similar dorsal-ventral distinctions exist for expression vs. extinction of fear conditioning. However, other results indicate that the role of mPFC neurons in reward processing is more complex than a simple PL-seek vs. IL-extinguish dichotomy. Both PL and IL have been shown to drive and inhibit drug seeking (and other types of behaviors) depending on a range of factors including the behavioral context, the drug-history of the animal, and the type of drug investigated. This heterogeneity of findings may reflect multiple subcircuits within each of these PFC areas supporting unique functions. It may also reflect the fact that the mPFC plays a multifaceted role in shaping cognition and behavior, including those overlapping with cocaine seeking and extinction. Here we discuss research leading to the hypothesis that dorsal and ventral mPFC differentially control drug seeking and extinction. We also present recent results calling the absolute nature of a PL vs. IL dichotomy into question. Finally, we consider alternate functions for mPFC that correspond less to response execution and inhibition and instead incorporate the complex cognitive behavior for which the mPFC is broadly appreciated.

show abstract

Section: Evidence For An Imperfect Mapping Between Pl/il and Go/stopmentioning

confidence: 99%

Differential roles of medial prefrontal subregions in the regulation of drug seeking

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The mPFC plays a major role in the regulation of decisionrelated behavior, as seen in the context of risky decision-making and related tasks in rodents (Floresco et al, 2008a;Jentsch et al, 2010;Simon et al, 2011;St Onge et al, 2011, 2012a, and more generally across a number of other tasks (Kesner and Churchwell, 2011;Euston et al, 2012;Cassaday et al, 2014). Broadly speaking, the mPFC in rodents is widely considered to subserve a variety of executive functions that are engaged during decision-making (Cardinal, 2006;Euston et al, 2012;Chudasama, 2011).…”

Section: Decision Making Is Supported By Multiple Diverse Neural Sysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…These include working memory, attention, planning, impulse control, action/outcome monitoring and behavioral flexibility, etc. (De Bruin et al, 2000;Dalley et al, 2004;Kesner and Churchwell, 2011;Euston et al, 2012;Bissonette et al, 2013;Cassaday et al, 2014). In many ways, these cognitive phenomena are all root functions of decision-making.…”

Section: Decision Making Is Supported By Multiple Diverse Neural Sysmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The mPFC is made up of multiple subregions along the dorsal ventral axis (Heidbreder and Groenewegen, 2003;Vertes, 2004). In particular, the dorsal regions of the mPFC (typically the prelimbic cortex, PL, and sometimes including the anterior cingulate cortex, ACC) have been demonstrated to play a different, and sometimes even an opposite, role to the ventral mPFC (infralimbic cortex, IL) (Killcross and Coutureau, 2003;Peters et al, 2009;Van den Oever et al, 2010;Euston et al, 2012;Gass and Chandler, 2013;Smith and Graybiel, 2013;Cassaday et al, 2014). In the context of fear conditioning, PL plays a more important role in encoding fearrelated stimuli and associated behavioral responses (e.g., freezing).…”

Section: Anatomical Segregation Of Mpfc Function -Dichotomies and Beyondmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Neural mechanisms regulating different forms of risk-related decision-making: Insights from animal models

Orsini

Moorman

Young

et al. 2015

Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

133

110

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Over the past 20 years there has been a growing interest in the neural underpinnings of cost/benefit decision-making. Recent studies with animal models have made considerable advances in our understanding of how different prefrontal, striatal, limbic and monoaminergic circuits interact to promote efficient risk/reward decision-making, and how dysfunction in these circuits underlies aberrant decision-making observed in numerous psychiatric disorders. This review will highlight recent findings from studies exploring these questions using a variety of behavioral assays, as well as molecular, pharmacological, neurophysiological, and translational approaches. We begin with a discussion of how neural systems related to decision subcomponents may interact to generate more complex decisions involving risk and uncertainty. This is followed by an overview of interactions between prefrontal-amygdala-dopamine and habenular circuits in regulating choice between certain and uncertain rewards and how different modes of dopamine transmission may contribute to these processes. These data will be compared with results from other studies investigating the contribution of some of these systems to guiding decision-making related to rewards vs. punishment. Lastly, we provide a brief summary of impairments in risk-related decision-making associated with psychiatric disorders, highlighting recent translational studies in laboratory animals.

show abstract

“…For example, compared with the striatum, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) receives fewer DA projections (11), expresses fewer DA reuptake transporters (12), and exhibits an overall lower level of DA (13,14). Nevertheless, pharmacological studies have implicated DA as a powerful neuromodulator of mPFC, able to influence many cognitive functions that support learning (15)(16)(17)(18)(19)(20)(21). Furthermore, DA neurons in VTA projecting to either the striatum or mPFC have distinct intrinsic neuronal properties and receive distinct inputs (22)(23)(24); thus, they are likely to serve different roles.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Phasic dopamine release in the medial prefrontal cortex enhances stimulus discrimination

Popescu

Zhou

Poo

2016

Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Phasic dopamine (DA) release is believed to guide associative learning. Most studies have focused on projections from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to the striatum, and the action of DA in other VTA target regions remains unclear. Using optogenetic activation of VTA projections, we examined DA function in the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). We found that mice perceived optogenetically induced DA release in mPFC as neither rewarding nor aversive, and did not change their previously learned behavior in response to DA transients. However, repetitive temporal pairing of an auditory conditioned stimulus (CS) with mPFC DA release resulted in faster learning of a subsequent task involving discrimination of the same CS against unpaired stimuli. Similar results were obtained using both appetitive and aversive unconditioned stimuli, supporting the notion that DA transients in mPFC do not represent valence. Using extracellular recordings, we found that CS-DA pairings increased firing of mPFC neurons in response to CSs, and administration of D 1 or D 2 DAreceptor antagonists in mPFC during learning impaired stimulus discrimination. We conclude that DA transients tune mPFC neurons for the recognition of behaviorally relevant events during learning.learning | attention | dopamine T he firing activity of dopamine (DA) neurons in the ventral tegmental area (VTA) is consistent with a role of reward prediction error signal, which is believed to guide behavioral adaptation through DA release in target brain regions (1-7). Experiments using optogenetic manipulations have established a causal link between the activity of DA neurons in VTA and the reinforcing signal that mediates learning and conditioning (8-10). Stimulation of VTA, however, results in transient DA release in many target areas, and it is unclear how each of these regions contributes to learning. For example, compared with the striatum, the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) receives fewer DA projections (11), expresses fewer DA reuptake transporters (12), and exhibits an overall lower level of DA (13,14). Nevertheless, pharmacological studies have implicated DA as a powerful neuromodulator of mPFC, able to influence many cognitive functions that support learning (15-21). Furthermore, DA neurons in VTA projecting to either the striatum or mPFC have distinct intrinsic neuronal properties and receive distinct inputs (22-24); thus, they are likely to serve different roles. It remains unclear what function phasic DA release might have in mPFC, whether it carries any valence, or how it affects stimulus-specific learning.In this study, we addressed specifically the role of phasic DA release in stimulus-response association. Using optogenetically timed release of DA from VTA neuronal projections in mPFC, we found that DA transients enhance the firing of mPFC neurons in response to the paired conditioned stimuli (CSs), whereas blocking DA receptors in mPFC during learning impairs stimulus discrimination. Furthermore, pairing a CS with optogenetic stimulation of DA fibers in ...

show abstract

From attention to memory along the dorsal-ventral axis of the medial prefrontal cortex: some methodological considerations

Cited by 47 publications

References 206 publications

Differential roles of medial prefrontal subregions in the regulation of drug seeking

Differential roles of medial prefrontal subregions in the regulation of drug seeking

Neural mechanisms regulating different forms of risk-related decision-making: Insights from animal models

Phasic dopamine release in the medial prefrontal cortex enhances stimulus discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About