Department of Psychology, University of Cambridge, Downing St., Cambridge, CB2 3EB, UK.
Psychopharmacology (Berl). 2013 May;227(2):195-208. doi: 10.1007/s00213-012-2952-1. Epub 2013 Jan 9.
Safety signals providing relief are hypothesised to possess conditioned reinforcing properties, supporting the acquisition of a new response (AnR) as seen with appetitive stimuli. Such responding should also be sensitive to the rate-increasing effects of d-amphetamine and to the anxiolytics 8-OH-DPAT and diazepam.
This study tests whether safety signals have conditioned reinforcing properties similar to those of stimuli-predicting reward.
Rats received Pavlovian conditioning with either appetitive stimuli (CS+) or safety signals (conditioned inhibitors, CIs) plus truly random control (TRC) stimuli. The appetitive group received a CS + paired with a sucrose pellet and the safety signal group, a stimulus paired with shock omission. Stimuli were tested using an AnR procedure and following systemic d-amphetamine, the 5HT-1A agonist 8-OH-DPAT and the benzodiazepine diazepam in a counterbalanced design.
Effective conditioning selectively reduced contextual freezing during CI presentation in the safety signal group and increased food magazine responses (with respect to context and TRC) during CS + presentation in the appetitive group. The appetitive stimulus strongly supported AnR but the safety signal did not. Systemic d-amphetamine significantly potentiated lever pressing in the appetitive group but for the safety signal group, it either reduced it or had no effect, dependent on food deprivation state. 8-OH-DPAT and diazepam had no effect on responding in either group.
The safety signal did not support AnR and, therefore, did not exhibit conditioned reinforcing properties. Furthermore, d-amphetamine decreased responding when the safety signal was presented as a consequence, whilst increasing responding with appetitive-conditioned reinforcement. These results are discussed in terms of implications for opponent motivational theory.
假设提供缓解的安全信号具有条件强化特性,支持新反应(AnR)的获得,就像对开胃刺激物的反应一样。这种反应也应该对 d-苯丙胺的增率效应以及抗焦虑药 8-OH-DPAT 和地西泮敏感。
本研究测试安全信号是否具有与预测奖励的刺激相似的条件强化特性。
大鼠接受条件反射训练,使用开胃刺激物(CS+)或安全信号(条件抑制剂,CI)加上真正的随机控制(TRC)刺激。开胃组接受 CS+与蔗糖丸配对,安全信号组接受与电击回避配对的刺激。使用 AnR 程序测试刺激物,然后在平衡设计中系统给予 d-苯丙胺、5HT-1A 激动剂 8-OH-DPAT 和苯二氮䓬类药物地西泮。
有效的条件反射选择性地减少了安全信号组在 CI 呈现期间的环境冻结,增加了在开胃组 CS+呈现期间食物杂志反应(相对于环境和 TRC)。开胃刺激物强烈支持 AnR,但安全信号没有。系统性 d-苯丙胺显著增强了开胃组的杠杆按压,但对于安全信号组,它要么减少了它,要么没有效果,这取决于食物剥夺状态。8-OH-DPAT 和地西泮对两组的反应都没有影响。
安全信号不支持 AnR,因此不具有条件强化特性。此外,当安全信号作为后果呈现时,d-苯丙胺会减少反应,而当与开胃条件强化时,会增加反应。这些结果根据对手动机理论的影响进行了讨论。