4.6 Article

Effects of orbitofrontal cortex lesions on autoshaped lever pressing and reversal learning

Journal

BEHAVIOURAL BRAIN RESEARCH
Volume 273, Issue -, Pages 52-56

Publisher

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.bbr.2014.07.029

Keywords

Sign-tracking; Goal-tracking; Autoshaping; Incentive salience; Orbitofrontal cortex; Reversal learning

Funding

  1. NIH [MH53667]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

A cue associated with a rewarding event can trigger behavior towards the cue itself due to the cue acquiring incentive value through its pairing with the rewarding outcome (i.e., sign-tracking). For example, rats will approach, press, and attempt to consume a retractable lever conditioned stimulus (CS) that signals delivery of a food unconditioned stimulus (US). Attending to food-predictive CSs is important when seeking out food, and it is just as important to be able to modify one's behavior when the relationships between CSs and USs are changed. Using a discriminative autoshaping procedure with lever CSs, the present study investigated the effects of orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) lesions on sign-tracking and reversal learning. Insertion of one lever was followed by sucrose delivery upon retraction, and insertion of another lever was followed by nothing. After the acquisition phase, the contingencies between the levers and outcomes were reversed. Bilateral OFC lesions had no effect on the acquisition of sign-tracking. However, OFC-Iesioned rats showed substantial deficits in acquiring sign-tracking compared to sham-lesioned rats once the stimulus-outcome contingencies were reversed. Over the course of reversal learning, OFC-lesioned rats were able to reach comparable levels of sign-tracking as sham-lesioned rats. These findings suggest that OFC is not necessary for the ability of a CS to acquire incentive value and provide more evidence that OFC is critical for modifying behavior appropriately following a change in stimulus-outcome contingencies. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available