Article

Role of Amygdala Central Nucleus in Aversive Learning Produced by Shock or by Unexpected Omission of Food

Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland 21218, USA.
The Journal of Neuroscience : The Official Journal of the Society for Neuroscience (Impact Factor: 6.75). 02/2012; 32(7):2461-72. DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5090-11.2012
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Many psychological learning theories have noted commonalities between aversive states produced by presentation of negative reinforcers, such as electric shock, and the omission of expected positive reinforcers, such as food. Here, three groups of rats received training with one auditory cue paired with shock and another with the omission of expected food, a shock-paired cue and a food-omission control cue, or a food-omission cue and a shock control cue. Food-omission cues were established by contrast with food delivery; after extensive light-food pairings, the light was followed by the food-omission cue instead of food. Aversiveness of the food-omission cue was assessed with a conditioned punishment procedure, in which presentation of that cue was made contingent on performance of one previously trained instrumental response, whereas a second response had no consequences. We found that rats with lesions of amygdala central nucleus (CeA) showed impaired acquisition of freezing to the cue paired with shock and no evidence for acquisition of aversive properties by the cue that accompanied the omission of expected food. Furthermore, analyses of Arc and Homer1a mRNAs after rats were exposed to a two-epoch test procedure that allowed assessment of gene expression produced by two different test stimuli showed that both food-omission and shock-paired cues generated more neuronal activity in CeA than appropriate control cues. However, the number of neurons that were activated by both shock and food-omission cues was not significantly greater than expected by chance. Thus, under these test conditions, different subsets of CeA neurons represented these two aversive states.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
68 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Initially neutral conditioned stimuli paired with food often acquire motivating properties, including serving as secondary reinforcers, enhancing instrumental responding in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer procedures, and potentiating food consumption under conditions of food satiation. Interestingly, cues associated with the cancellation of food and food cues may also potentiate food consumption (e.g., Galarce and Holland, 2009), despite their apparent negative correlations with food delivery. In three experiments with rats, we investigated conditions under which potentiation of feeding by such "interruption stimuIi" (ISs) develops, and some aspects of the content of that learning. Although in all three experiments ISs enhanced food consumption beyond control levels, they were found to act as conditioned inhibitors for anticipatory food cup entry (Experiment 1), to serve as conditioned punishers of instrumental responding (Experiment 2), and to suppress instrumental lever press responding in a Pavlovian instrumental transfer procedure (Experiment 3). Furthermore, when given concurrent choice between different foods, an IS enhanced consumption of the food whose interruption it had previously signaled, but when given a choice between performing two instrumental responses, the IS shifted rats' choice away from the response that had previously yielded the food whose interruption had been signaled by IS (Experiment 3). Thus, the effects of an IS on appetitive responses were opposite to its effects on consummatory responding. Implications for our understanding of learned incentive motivation and the control of overeating are discussed.
    Learning & Behavior 09/2014; 42(4). DOI:10.3758/s13420-014-0154-x · 1.48 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / n e u b i o r e v: Psychological pain Physical pain Reward loss Reward omission Reward devaluation Appetitive extinction Successive negative contrast Frustration Opioid receptors Anterior cingulate cortex Roman high-and low-avoidance strains a b s t r a c t Pain is a common word used to refer to a wide range of physical and mental states sharing hedonic aver-sive value. Three types of pain are distinguished in this article: Physical pain, an aversive state related to actual or potential injury and disease; social pain, an aversive emotion associated to social exclusion; and psychological pain, a negative emotion induced by incentive loss. This review centers on psychological pain as studied in nonhuman animals. After covering issues of terminology, the article briefly discusses the daily-life significance of psychological pain and then centers on a discussion of the results originating from two procedures involving incentive loss: successive negative contrast—the unexpected devaluation of a reward—and appetitive extinction—the unexpected omission of a reward. The evidence reviewed points to substantial commonalities, but also some differences and interactions between physical and psychological pains. This evidence is discussed in relation to behavioral, pharmacological, neurobio-logical, and genetic factors that contribute to the multidimensional experience of psychological pain.
    Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews 12/2014; 48:53-69. DOI:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.11.012 · 10.28 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Initially neutral conditioned stimuli (CSs) paired with food often acquire motivating properties. For example, CS presentations may enhance the rate of instrumental responding that normally earns that food reward (Pavlovian-instrumental transfer), or potentiate consumption of that food when the animal is food-sated. Recent evidence suggests that cues associated with the withdrawal of food and food cues (interruption stimuli or ISs) may also potentiate feeding, despite exhibiting some characteristics of conditioned inhibition. Here, we compared the ability of CSs and ISs to modulate both eating food and working for it. If CSs and ISs potentiate eating food by controlling a similar incentive state, both types of cues might also be expected to enhance instrumental responding for food. Although we found substantial potentiation of feeding by both CSs and ISs, and powerful enhancement of instrumental responding by a CS, we found no evidence for such instrumental enhancement by an IS. Furthermore, although an IS produced more FOS expression in the amygdala central nucleus (CeA) than either a previously reinforced CS or a control stimulus after a test for potentiated feeding, an intact CeA was unnecessary for potentiation of feeding by either a CS or an IS. Nevertheless, as in previous studies, CeA was critical to the ability of a CS to enhance instrumental responding. Implications for understanding the nature and basis for incentive learning are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved).
    Behavioral Neuroscience 02/2014; 128(1):71-82. DOI:10.1037/a0035445 · 2.63 Impact Factor