Publications

Recently, evidence has emerged suggesting a role for the paraventricular nucleus of the thalamus (PVT) in the processing of reward-associated cues. However, the specific role of the PVT in these processes has yet to be elucidated. Here we use an animal model that captures individual variation in response to discrete reward-associated cues to further assess the role of the PVT in stimulus–reward learning. When rats are exposed to a Pavlovian conditioning paradigm, wherein a discrete cue predicts food reward, two distinct conditioned responses emerge. Some rats, termed sign-trackers, approach and manipulate the cue, whereas others, termed goal-trackers, approach the location of reward delivery upon cue presentation. For both sign- and goal-trackers the cue is a predictor, but only for sign-trackers is it also an incentive stimulus. We investigated the role of the PVT in the acquisition and expression of these conditioned responses using an excitotoxic lesion. Results indicate that PVT lesions prior to acquisition amplify the differences between phenotypes – increasing sign-tracking and attenuating goal-tracking behavior. Lesions of the PVT after rats had acquired their respective conditioned responses also attenuated the expression of the goal-tracking response, and increased the sign-tracking response, but did so selectively in goal-trackers. These results suggest that the PVT acts to suppress the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues, as disruption of the functional activity within this structure enhances the tendency to sign-track.

A discrete cue associated with intravenous injections of cocaine acquires greater control over motivated behavior in some rats (‘sign-trackers’, STs) than others (‘goal-trackers’, GTs). It is not known, however, if such variation generalizes to cues associated with other drugs. We asked, therefore, whether a discrete cue (a light) associated with the intravenous administration of an opioid drug (the short-acting mu receptor agonist, remifentanil) acquires incentive motivational properties differently in STs and GTs, as indicated by tests of Pavlovian conditioned approach and conditioned reinforcement. Consistent with studies using cocaine, STs approached a classically conditioned opioid cue more readily than GTs, and in a test of conditioned reinforcement worked more avidly to get it. Interestingly, STs and GTs did not differ in the acquisition of a conditioned orienting response. In addition, the performance of conditioned approach behavior, but not conditioned orientation, was attenuated by pretreatment with the dopamine receptor antagonist, flupenthixol, into the core of the nucleus accumbens. Lastly, food and opioid cues engaged similar amygdalo–striatal–thalamic circuitry to a much greater extent in STs than GTs, as indicated by Fos expression. Taken together, these data demonstrate that, similar to food and cocaine cues: (1) a discrete opioid cue attains greater incentive motivational value in STs than GTs; (2) the attribution of incentive motivational properties to an opioid cue is dopamine dependent; and (3) an opioid cue engages the so-called ‘motive circuit’ only if it is imbued with incentive salience.

There is considerable individual variation in the propensity of animals to attribute incentive salience to discrete reward cues, but to date most of this research has been conducted in male rats. The purpose of this study was to determine whether sex influences the propensity to attribute incentive salience to a food cue, using rats from two different outbred strains (Sprague-Dawley [SD] and Heterogeneous Stock [HS]). The motivational value of a food cue was assessed in two ways: (i) by the ability of the cue to elicit approach toward it and (ii) by its ability to act as a conditioned reinforcer. We found that female SD rats acquired Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior slightly faster than males, but no sex difference was detected in HS rats, and neither strain showed a sex difference in asymptotic performance of approach behavior. Moreover, female approach behavior did not differ across estrous cycle. Compared to males, females made more active responses during the test for conditioned reinforcement, although they made more inactive responses as well. We conclude that although there are small sex differences in performance on these tasks, these are probably not due to a notable sex difference in the propensity to attribute incentive salience to a food cue.