Back to Search Start Over

Effects of predictive and incentive value manipulation on sign- and goal-tracking behavior.

Authors :
María-Ríos, Cristina E.
Fitzpatrick, Christopher J.
Czesak, Francesca N.
Morrow, Jonathan D.
Source :
Neurobiology of Learning & Memory. Sep2023, Vol. 203, pN.PAG-N.PAG. 1p.
Publication Year :
2023

Abstract

• Pavlovian learning can induce sign-tracking or goal-tracking responses. • Sign-tracking is reduced by reward devaluation, while goal-tracking is not. • Goal-tracking can be blocked by a competing cue, but sign-tracking resists blocking. • Thus some types of learning are sensitive to reward value; others predictive value. When a neutral stimulus is repeatedly paired with an appetitive reward, two different types of conditioned approach responses may develop: a sign-tracking response directed toward the neutral cue, or a goal-tracking response directed toward the location of impending reward delivery. Sign-tracking responses have been postulated to result from attribution of incentive value to conditioned cues, while goal-tracking reflects the assignment of only predictive value to the cue. We therefore hypothesized that sign-tracking rats would be more sensitive to manipulations of incentive value, while goal-tracking rats would be more responsive to changes in the predictive value of the cue. We tested sign- and goal-tracking before and after devaluation of a food reward using lithium chloride, and tested whether either response could be learned under negative contingency conditions that precluded any serendipitous reinforcement of the behavior that might support instrumental learning. We also tested the effects of blocking the predictive value of a cue using simultaneous presentation of a pre-conditioned cue. We found that sign-tracking was sensitive to outcome devaluation, while goal-tracking was not. We also confirmed that both responses are Pavlovian because they can be learned under negative contingency conditions. Goal-tracking was almost completely blocked by a pre-conditioned cue, while sign-tracking was much less sensitive to such interference. These results indicate that sign- and goal-tracking may follow different rules of reinforcement learning and suggest a need to revise current models of associative learning to account for these differences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
10747427
Volume :
203
Database :
Academic Search Index
Journal :
Neurobiology of Learning & Memory
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
169751701
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2023.107796