1. Program in Neuroscience,
2. Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology,
3. Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, 20 Penn Street, HSF-2 S251 Baltimore, Maryland 21201, USA
4. The Ingenuity Project, Baltimore Polytechnic Institute, 1400 West Coldspring Lane, Baltimore, Maryland 21209, USA

Correspondence to: Geoffrey Schoenbaum^2,3 Correspondence and requests for materials should be addressed to G.S. (Email: schoenbg@schoenbaumlab.org).

Abstract

Cues that reliably predict rewards trigger the thoughts and emotions normally evoked by those rewards. Humans and other animals will work, often quite hard, for these cues. This is termed conditioned reinforcement. The ability to use conditioned reinforcers to guide our behaviour is normally beneficial; however, it can go awry. For example, corporate icons, such as McDonald's Golden Arches, influence consumer behaviour in powerful and sometimes surprising ways¹, and drug-associated cues trigger relapse to drug seeking in addicts and animals exposed to addictive drugs, even after abstinence or extinction^{2, 3}. Yet, despite their prevalence, it is not known how conditioned reinforcers control human or other animal behaviour. One possibility is that they act through the use of the specific rewards they predict; alternatively, they could control behaviour directly by activating emotions that are independent of any specific reward. In other words, the Golden Arches may drive business because they evoke thoughts of hamburgers and fries, or instead, may be effective because they also evoke feelings of hunger or happiness. Moreover, different brain circuits could support conditioned reinforcement mediated by thoughts of specific outcomes versus more general affective information. Here we have attempted to address these questions in rats. Rats were trained to learn that different cues predicted different rewards using specialized conditioning procedures that controlled whether the cues evoked thoughts of specific outcomes or general affective representations common to different outcomes. Subsequently, these rats were given the opportunity to press levers to obtain short and otherwise unrewarded presentations of these cues. We found that rats were willing to work for cues that evoked either outcome-specific or general affective representations. Furthermore the orbitofrontal cortex, a prefrontal region important for adaptive decision-making⁴, was critical for the former but not for the latter form of conditioned reinforcement.

MORE ARTICLES LIKE THIS

These links to content published by NPG are automatically generated.