The role of ‘jackpot’ stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists

Smith, Aaron; Hofford, Rebecca S.; Zentall, Thomas R.; Beckmann, Joshua S.

doi:10.1007/s00213-018-4851-6

Cited by 20 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 55 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Relatively optimal performance on neutral filler trials that was similar between groups further establishes a specificity for this bias indicating that it is unlikely attributable to a more global impairment in rational decision-making. Cue reactivity research in the animal laboratory has also described similar effects wherein cues alter sensitivity to primary reinforcer value in a way that translates into disadvantageous decisionmaking (Chow et al, 2017;Smith et al, 2018;Zentall, 2014). For example, animal subjects presented with concurrent reinforcer choice tend to prefer choices that result in stronger conditioned reinforcers even when these choices are suboptimal (i.e., produce lower overall rates of primary reinforcement) (Zentall, 2014).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans

Strickland

Lile

Stoops

2019

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Drug-related cues play a critical role in the development and persistence of substance use disorder. Few human laboratory studies have evaluated how these cues contribute to decisions between concurrently presented reinforcers, and none have examined the specific role of cannabis cues. This study evaluated the contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent monetary reinforcer choice in humans. Methods: Participants with a cannabis use history (i.e., use in the past two weeks and 50 or more lifetime uses; n = 71) and controls without this history (i.e., 5 or less lifetime uses; n = 79) were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk. A cued concurrent choice task was used in which cannabis trials presented two cues (one cannabis and one neutral) side-by-side followed by concurrent monetary offers below each image. The primary dependent measure was choice for cannabis-cued monetary reinforcers on equal value trials. Secondary analyses evaluated individual difference variables related to choice bias.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans

Strickland

Lile

Stoops

2019

Drug and Alcohol Dependence

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Using ascending and descending schedules is applicable to the PDT and to the RDT. In the PDT, the probability of obtaining the large magnitude reinforcer is generally decreased across the session only (e.g., Mendez et al, 2012; Smith et al, 2018; St Onge & Floresco, 2009; Wallin-Miller et al, 2018; Yang et al, 2016; Yates et al, 2015). This is somewhat problematic because studies have shown that the order in which probabilities are presented can alter how pharmacological manipulations affect risky choice in the PDT.…”

Section: Methodological Considerations In Risky Choice Tasksmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Inconsistencies are also observed across tasks following administration of dopamine selective agonists/antagonists. The dopamine D 1 receptor antagonist SCH 23390 decreases risky choice in the PDT (Smith, Hofford, Zentall, & Beckmann, 2018; St Onge, Abhari, & Floresco, 2011; St Onge & Floresco, 2009), but has no effect on choice in the RDT (Simon et al, 2011) or rGT (Zeeb et al, 2009; Zeeb et al, 2013). Overall, stimulating D 1 receptors does not alter performance in the PDT (Smith et al, 2018; St Onge et al, 2011; Wallin-Miller, Kreutz, Li, & Wood, 2018), in the RDT (Simon et al, 2011), or in the rGT (Zeeb et al, 2009), but one study reported an increase in risky choice following administration of SKF 81297 in the PDT (St Onge & Floresco, 2009).…”

Section: Neurochemical Underpinnings Of Risky Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

“…Specifically, stimulating D 2 receptors with either quinpirole or bromocriptine increases risky choice in the PDT (Oinio et al, 2017; St Onge & Floresco, 2009; Wallin-Miller et al, 2018), decreases risky choice in the RDT (Simon et al, 2011), but has no effect in the rGT (Zeeb et al, 2009). Concerning the effects of D 2 antagonists, eticlopride increases risk aversion in the PDT (St Onge et al, 2011; St Onge & Floresco, 2009; but see Smith et al, 2018 for null effects) and increases optimal choice in the rGT, as evidenced by an increase in responses for the P2 option and a decrease in responses for the P3/P4 options (Zeeb et al, 2009; but see Di Ciano et al, 2015 for null effects with the D 2 antagonist L-741,626 in the rGT). Although blocking D 2 receptors alters risky choice in the PDT and the rGT, there is no evidence that antagonizing this receptor alters RDT performance (Simon et al, 2011).…”

Section: Neurochemical Underpinnings Of Risky Choicementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Examining the neurochemical underpinnings of animal models of risky choice: Methodological and analytic considerations.

Yates

2019

Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Because risky choice is associated with several psychiatric conditions, recent research has focused on examining the underlying neurochemical processes that control risk-based decision making. Not surprisingly, several tasks have been developed to study the neural mechanisms involved in risky choice. The current review will briefly discuss the major tasks used to measure risky choice and will summarize the contribution of several major neurotransmitter systems to this behavior. To date, the most common measures of risky choice are the probability discounting task (PDT), the risky decision task (RDT), and the rat gambling task (rGT). Across these three tasks, the contribution of the dopaminergic system has been most studied, although the effects of serotonergic, adrenergic, cholinergic, and glutamatergic ligands will be discussed. Drug effects across these tasks have been inconsistent, which makes determining the precise role of neurotransmitter systems in risky choice somewhat difficult. Furthermore, procedural differences can modulate drug effects in these procedures, and the way data are analyzed can alter the interpretations one makes concerning pharmacological manipulations. By taking these methodological/analytic considerations into account, we may better elucidate the neurochemistry of risky decision making.

show abstract

“…Other laboratories have shown that this dose disrupted the acquisition of sign-tracking (Chow et al, 2016) and expression of sign-tracking (Clark et al, 2013). Moreover, 0.01 mg/kg SCH-23390 has been shown to increase cocaine self-administration (Koob et al, 1987), reduce saccharin seeking (Aoyama et al, 2016) and alter risky decision-making in rats (Smith et al, 2018). Although our previous studies did not find effects of SCH-23390 on ITI port entries (Sciascia et al, 2014) and other laboratories have reported no effect of SCH-23390 on food consumption during Pavlovian conditioning (Chow et al, 2016) or on Pre-CS locomotor activity (Palmatier et al, 2014), we found that 0.01 mg/kg SCH-23390 impaired ITI port entries and the number of movement episodes in a locomotor activity test.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Effects of dopamine receptor antagonism and amphetamine-induced psychomotor sensitization on sign- and goal-tracking after extended training

Khoo

Uhrig²,

Chaudhri³

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rationale. The dopamine system is thought to be important in incentive salience attribution, where motivational value is assigned to a cue that predicts an appetitive reinforcer (sign-tracking), however, dopamine's role may change with extended training. Objectives. We tested the effects of selective dopamine D1-like and D2-like receptor antagonism on the expression of Pavlovian conditioned approach after extended Pavlovian conditioned approach (PCA) training. We also tested the hypothesis that locomotor sensitization would accelerate the phenotypic shift to sign-tracking. Methods. 24 male Long-Evans rats were subjected to 20 PCA sessions in which one lever (CS+, 10 s) predicted 0.2 mL sucrose delivery and the other lever (CS-) did not. SCH-23390 or eticlopride were administered prior to behavioral tests at doses of 0, 0.01, and 0.1 mg/kg (s.c.). In a subsequent experiment, rats were exposed to vehicle or 2 mg/kg amphetamine (i.p.) for 7 days (n = 12/group). After a 10-day incubation period, they were subjected to PCA training for 16 sessions. Results. The D1 antagonist SCH-23390 reduced locomotor activity and port entries during inter-trial intervals, but the D2 antagonist eticlopride selectively reduced CS+ port entries in goal-trackers , i.e. animals motivated towards the reinforcer. Locomotor sensitization had no effect on the acquisition of sign-tracking. Conclusions. A commonly used dose of SCH-23390 exhibited off-target locomotor effects and D2 receptors were not required for expression of sign-tracking after extended training. Amphetamine-induced locomotor sensitization did not enhance acquisition of sign-tracking behavior, suggesting that the sensitivity of the dopamine system does not drive acquisition of sign-tracking behavior.

show abstract

The role of ‘jackpot’ stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists

Abstract: The results highlight how signals predictive of wins can promote maladaptive risk taking in individuals, while loss signals have reduced effect. Additionally, the presence of reward-predictive cues may change the underlying neurobehavioral mechanisms mediating decision-making under risk.

Cited by 20 publications

References 55 publications

Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans

Contribution of cannabis-related cues to concurrent reinforcer choice in humans

Examining the neurochemical underpinnings of animal models of risky choice: Methodological and analytic considerations.

Effects of dopamine receptor antagonism and amphetamine-induced psychomotor sensitization on sign- and goal-tracking after extended training

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About