Shared Neural Mechanisms for the Evaluation of Intense Sensory Stimulation and Economic Reward, Dependent on Stimulation-Seeking Behavior

Abstract

Whyaresomepeoplestronglymotivatedbyintensesensoryexperiences?Hereweinvestigatedhowpeopleencodethevalueofanintensesensory experience compared with economic reward, and how this varies according to stimulation-seeking preference. Specifically, we used a novel behavioraltaskincombinationwithcomputationalmodelingtoderivethevalueindividualsassignedtotheopportunitytoexperienceanintense tactile stimulus (mild electric shock). We then examined functional imaging data recorded during task performance to see how the opportunity to experience the sensory stimulus was encoded in stimulation-seekers versus stimulation-avoiders. We found that for individuals who positivelysoughtoutthiskindofsensorystimulation,therewascommonencodingofanticipatedeconomicandsensoryrewardsintheventromedial prefrontal cortex. Conversely, there was robust encoding of the modeled probability of receiving such stimulation in the insula only in stimulation-avoidant individuals. Finally, we found preliminary evidence that sensory prediction error signals may be positively signed for stimulation-seekers, but negatively signed for stimulation-avoiders, in the posterior cingulate cortex. These findings may help explain why high intensity sensory experiences are appetitive for some individuals, but not for others, and may have relevance for the increased vulnerability for some psychopathologies, but perhaps increased resilience for others, in high sensation-seeking individuals.

Tracking Deceased-Related Thinking With Neural Pattern Decoding of a Cortical-Basal Ganglia Circuit

“…We did not apply a cluster correction to this mask because we sought to identify a large set of clusters thereby increasing signal to noise ratio for subsequent MVPA analyses. This is similar to the approach employed in prior conjunction studies (29, 30). To identify a more stringent conjunction mask we employed a cluster threshold of p<0.05.…”

Systems genetics of sensation seeking

“…[10][11][12] In this regard, an intriguing hypothesis is that heritable variation in the homeostatic set point of sensory stimulation 13 underlies the observed relationship between sensation seeking and substance use in humans, and that these fundamental biological mechanisms are conserved across species. This hypothesis is supported by human 14,15 and mouse 16,17 studies in which operant sensation seeking (OSS), an index of an individual's preferred level of sensory stimulation, 18 covaries with addiction-related behaviors and is driven by reward-system circuitry. In the OSS paradigm, the human participant or rodent subject is placed into an environment devoid of sensory stimulation and is given the opportunity to perform an operant response that introduces visual stimulation, auditory stimulation, tactile stimulation or some combination of these stimuli into the environment.…”

“…Half of the mice in each cohort were males and half were females. Within each cohort, the 64 mice were randomly assigned to a testing group (1)(2)(3)(4) and, within each group, an operant conditioning chamber (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16).…”

“…Strain and sex were between-subjects factors. Session (1)(2)(3)(4)(5)(6)(7)(8)(9)(10)(11)(12)(13)(14)(15)(16)(17)(18)(19) or block (1-12) was a withinsubjects factor. When number of lever presses was used as the dependent measure, lever (active or inactive) was used as a second within-subjects factor.…”

“…a peak locus of 155.503 Mb (LOD = 3.96, P = 3.20 × 10 −2 ). The peak marker and CI were identical for the two methods.Because active lever preference had stabilized by session 11, we performed a principal component analysis in GeneNetwork using active lever preference on each of the final nine sessions (sessions[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19] to determine if variance common to these sessions drove Oss1 or if variance unique to session 19 was required to identify Oss1. This QTL accounted for 18% of the variance on active lever preference (Figure 2C).…”