68
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Modelling Individual Differences in the Form of Pavlovian Conditioned Approach Responses: A Dual Learning Systems Approach with Factored Representations

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Reinforcement Learning has greatly influenced models of conditioning, providing powerful explanations of acquired behaviour and underlying physiological observations. However, in recent autoshaping experiments in rats, variation in the form of Pavlovian conditioned responses (CRs) and associated dopamine activity, have questioned the classical hypothesis that phasic dopamine activity corresponds to a reward prediction error-like signal arising from a classical Model-Free system, necessary for Pavlovian conditioning. Over the course of Pavlovian conditioning using food as the unconditioned stimulus (US), some rats (sign-trackers) come to approach and engage the conditioned stimulus (CS) itself – a lever – more and more avidly, whereas other rats (goal-trackers) learn to approach the location of food delivery upon CS presentation. Importantly, although both sign-trackers and goal-trackers learn the CS-US association equally well, only in sign-trackers does phasic dopamine activity show classical reward prediction error-like bursts. Furthermore, neither the acquisition nor the expression of a goal-tracking CR is dopamine-dependent. Here we present a computational model that can account for such individual variations. We show that a combination of a Model-Based system and a revised Model-Free system can account for the development of distinct CRs in rats. Moreover, we show that revising a classical Model-Free system to individually process stimuli by using factored representations can explain why classical dopaminergic patterns may be observed for some rats and not for others depending on the CR they develop. In addition, the model can account for other behavioural and pharmacological results obtained using the same, or similar, autoshaping procedures. Finally, the model makes it possible to draw a set of experimental predictions that may be verified in a modified experimental protocol. We suggest that further investigation of factored representations in computational neuroscience studies may be useful.

          Author Summary

          Acquisition of responses towards full predictors of rewards, namely Pavlovian conditioning, has long been explained using the reinforcement learning theory. This theory formalizes learning processes that, by attributing values to situations and actions, makes it possible to direct behaviours towards rewarding objectives. Interestingly, the implied mechanisms rely on a reinforcement signal that parallels the activity of dopamine neurons in such experiments. However, recent studies challenged the classical view of explaining Pavlovian conditioning with a single process. When presented with a lever whose retraction preceded the delivery of food, some rats started to chew and bite the food magazine whereas others chew and bite the lever, even if no interactions were necessary to get the food. These differences were also visible in brain activity and when tested with drugs, suggesting the coexistence of multiple systems. We present a computational model that extends the classical theory to account for these data. Interestingly, we can draw predictions from this model that may be experimentally verified. Inspired by mechanisms used to model instrumental behaviours, where actions are required to get rewards, and advanced Pavlovian behaviours (such as overexpectation, negative patterning), it offers an entry point to start modelling the strong interactions observed between them.

          Related collections

          Most cited references47

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The debate over dopamine's role in reward: the case for incentive salience.

          Debate continues over the precise causal contribution made by mesolimbic dopamine systems to reward. There are three competing explanatory categories: 'liking', learning, and 'wanting'. Does dopamine mostly mediate the hedonic impact of reward ('liking')? Does it instead mediate learned predictions of future reward, prediction error teaching signals and stamp in associative links (learning)? Or does dopamine motivate the pursuit of rewards by attributing incentive salience to reward-related stimuli ('wanting')? Each hypothesis is evaluated here, and it is suggested that the incentive salience or 'wanting' hypothesis of dopamine function may be consistent with more evidence than either learning or 'liking'. In brief, recent evidence indicates that dopamine is neither necessary nor sufficient to mediate changes in hedonic 'liking' for sensory pleasures. Other recent evidence indicates that dopamine is not needed for new learning, and not sufficient to directly mediate learning by causing teaching or prediction signals. By contrast, growing evidence indicates that dopamine does contribute causally to incentive salience. Dopamine appears necessary for normal 'wanting', and dopamine activation can be sufficient to enhance cue-triggered incentive salience. Drugs of abuse that promote dopamine signals short circuit and sensitize dynamic mesolimbic mechanisms that evolved to attribute incentive salience to rewards. Such drugs interact with incentive salience integrations of Pavlovian associative information with physiological state signals. That interaction sets the stage to cause compulsive 'wanting' in addiction, but also provides opportunities for experiments to disentangle 'wanting', 'liking', and learning hypotheses. Results from studies that exploited those opportunities are described here. In short, dopamine's contribution appears to be chiefly to cause 'wanting' for hedonic rewards, more than 'liking' or learning for those rewards.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex.

            Emotions are multifaceted, but a key aspect of emotion involves the assessment of the value of environmental stimuli. This article reviews the many psychological representations, including representations of stimulus value, which are formed in the brain during Pavlovian and instrumental conditioning tasks. These representations may be related directly to the functions of cortical and subcortical neural structures. The basolateral amygdala (BLA) appears to be required for a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus (CS) to gain access to the current value of the specific unconditioned stimulus (US) that it predicts, while the central nucleus of the amygdala acts as a controller of brainstem arousal and response systems, and subserves some forms of stimulus-response Pavlovian conditioning. The nucleus accumbens, which appears not to be required for knowledge of the contingency between instrumental actions and their outcomes, nevertheless influences instrumental behaviour strongly by allowing Pavlovian CSs to affect the level of instrumental responding (Pavlovian-instrumental transfer), and is required for the normal ability of animals to choose rewards that are delayed. The prelimbic cortex is required for the detection of instrumental action-outcome contingencies, while insular cortex may allow rats to retrieve the values of specific foods via their sensory properties. The orbitofrontal cortex, like the BLA, may represent aspects of reinforcer value that govern instrumental choice behaviour. Finally, the anterior cingulate cortex, implicated in human disorders of emotion and attention, may have multiple roles in responding to the emotional significance of stimuli and to errors in performance, preventing responding to inappropriate stimuli.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              A selective role for dopamine in reward learning

              Individuals make choices and prioritize goals using complex processes that assign value to rewards and associated stimuli. During Pavlovian learning, previously neutral stimuli that predict rewards can acquire motivational properties, whereby they themselves become attractive and desirable incentive stimuli. But individuals differ in whether a cue acts solely as a predictor that evokes a conditional response, or also serves as an incentive stimulus, and this determines the degree to which a cue might bias choice or even promote maladaptive behavior. Here we use rats that differ in the incentive motivational properties they attribute to food cues to probe the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine in stimulus-reward learning. We show that intact dopamine transmission is not required for all forms of learning in which reward cues become effective predictors. Rather, dopamine acts selectively in a form of reward learning in which “incentive salience” is assigned to reward cues. In individuals with a propensity for this form of learning, reward cues come to powerfully motivate and control behavior. This work provides insight into the neurobiology of a form of reward learning that confers increased susceptibility to disorders of impulse control.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                Role: Editor
                Journal
                PLoS Comput Biol
                PLoS Comput. Biol
                plos
                ploscomp
                PLoS Computational Biology
                Public Library of Science (San Francisco, USA )
                1553-734X
                1553-7358
                February 2014
                13 February 2014
                : 10
                : 2
                : e1003466
                Affiliations
                [1 ]Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique, UMR 7222, UPMC Univ Paris 06, Paris, France
                [2 ]Institut des Systèmes Intelligents et de Robotique, UMR 7222, CNRS, Paris, France
                [3 ]Department of Psychiatry, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
                [4 ]Molecular and Behavioral Neuroscience Institute, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
                [5 ]Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Michigan, United States of America
                Indiana University, United States of America
                Author notes

                The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

                Conceived and designed the experiments: FL OS SBF TER MK. Performed the experiments: FL. Analyzed the data: FL OS SBF TER MK. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: FL SBF TER. Wrote the paper: FL OS SBF TER MK.

                Article
                PCOMPBIOL-D-13-01162
                10.1371/journal.pcbi.1003466
                3923662
                24550719
                cac72823-9220-4f11-a9ea-497be26a25b3
                Copyright @ 2014

                This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

                History
                : 1 July 2013
                : 19 December 2013
                Page count
                Pages: 18
                Funding
                This work was supported by Grant ANR-11-BSV4-006 “LU2” (Learning Under Uncertainty) from L'Agence Nationale de la Recherche, France (FL, OS, MK), by Grant “HABOT” from the Ville de Paris Emergence(s) Program, France (MK), by Grant “GoHaL” from the Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique PEPS Program, France (MK), and by Grant P01 DA031656 from the National Institute on Drug Abuse, USA (SBF, TER). The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript.
                Categories
                Research Article
                Biology
                Neuroscience
                Behavioral neuroscience
                Computational neuroscience
                Learning and memory

                Quantitative & Systems biology
                Quantitative & Systems biology

                Comments

                Comment on this article