4.5 Article

Distinct subsets of nucleus accumbens neurons encode operant responding for ethanol versus water

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 28, 期 9, 页码 1887-1894

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06464.x

关键词

-

资金

  1. NIH [AA014591, DA14339]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Subsets of nucleus accumbens (NAc) neurons process information about operant responses for drugs as well as natural rewards (food and water) by excitations and inhibitions in firing rate time-locked to the operant response. The degree to which ensembles of neurons exhibit similar firing patterns when encoding cues and operant responses across different reinforcer conditions will provide critical information regarding the functional organization of this nucleus. The present experiment evaluated the relative contribution of subsets of accumbens neurons that encode distinct features of lever press responding for ethanol vs. water. Electrophysiological recordings (n = 153 neurons) were made in the accumbens of rats trained on concurrent reinforcement schedules for ethanol and water throughout a self-administration session. During operant responding, 52% of neurons exhibited patterned discharges characterized by significant increases or decreases in firing rate of +/- 1 s relative to lever presses for ethanol and/or water. Of these phasic cells, 85% discriminated between presses for ethanol and water (i.e. exhibited firing patterns unique to one reinforcer type), while 15% exhibited identical firing patterns relative to lever presses for both reinforcers. Notably, the data revealed that both high ethanol preference and spatially distinct lever positions contributed to the reinforcer specificity. Together, these data demonstrate that subsets of NAc neurons encode conditioned and instrumental aspects of ethanol vs. water reinforcement in well-trained rats, and that reinforcer preference and spatial cues are important components of this differential information processing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据