Michael H Anderson

Publications (2)7.64 Total impact

• Article: Investigating the psychopharmacology of cognitive affective bias in rats using an affective tone discrimination task.

  Michael H Anderson, Marcus R Munafò, Emma S J Robinson
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: RATIONALE: Affective states are known to influence behaviour in humans resulting in cognitive affective biases, which may play an important role in the development and treatment of mood disorders. Similar biases have recently been shown in animals, including the rat, providing an opportunity to investigate these processes in non-human species. OBJECTIVE: This study sought to investigate the psychopharmacology of cognitive affective bias in rats using systemic treatments with anxiolytic (diazepam) and antidepressant drugs (reboxetine or fluoxetine). METHODS: Lister hooded rats were trained to discriminate two distinct tones and respond on the appropriate lever to either obtain reward (food) or avoid punishment (mild foot shock). Cognitive affective bias, following acute or chronic drug treatment, was investigated using test sessions where both reference tones and intermediate ambiguous tones were included. RESULTS: Rats exhibited a negative judgement bias under vehicle conditions which was not significantly attenuated by any of the acute drug treatments, diazepam (0.3, 1.0 mg/kg), reboxetine (0.3-3.0 mg/kg) or fluoxetine 0.1-1.0 mg/kg). Acute reboxetine induced a significant and dose-dependent decrease in the anticipation of reward. Chronic treatment with fluoxetine tended to reduce the negative bias observed in the rats after 1 week of treatment although no significant main effect of treatment was observed. CONCLUSIONS: The results from these initial psychopharmacological studies show that drug treatments can differentially affect motivation to respond to cues associated with reward versus punishment. Our data also suggest that cognitive affective bias, quantified using this method, may be sensitive to chronic but not acute antidepressant treatment.
  Psychopharmacologia 12/2012; · 4.08 Impact Factor
• Article: Evaluation of a novel translational task for assessing emotional biases in different species.

  Michael H Anderson, Chloë Hardcastle, Marcus R Munafò, Emma S J Robinson
  [show abstract] [hide abstract]
  ABSTRACT: Changes in the processing of emotional information are key features of affective disorders. Neuropsychological tests based on emotional faces or words are used to detect emotional/affective biases in humans, but these tests are not applicable to animal species. In the present study, we investigated whether a novel affective tone discrimination task (ATDT), developed to study emotion-related behaviour in rats, could also be used to quantify changes in affective states in humans. To date, the methods used in human neuropsychology have not been applicable to animal experiments. Participants completed a training session in which they learnt to discriminate specific tone frequencies and to correctly respond in order to gain emotionally valenced outcomes, to obtain rewards (money), or to avoid punishment (an aversive sound clip). During a subsequent test session, additional ambiguous probe tones were presented at frequencies intermediate between the reward and avoidance paired tones. At the end of the task, participants completed self-report questionnaires. All participants made more avoidance responses to the most ambiguous tone cues, suggesting a bias towards avoidance of punishment. Individual differences in the degrees of bias observed were correlated with anxiety measures, suggesting the task's sensitivity to differences in state anxiety within a healthy population. Further studies in clinical populations will be necessary to assess the task's sensitivity to pathological anxiety states. These data suggest that this affective tone discrimination task provides a novel method to study cognitive affective biases in different species, including humans, and offers a novel assessment to study anxiety.
  Cognitive Affective & Behavioral Neuroscience 12/2011; 12(2):373-81. · 3.57 Impact Factor