Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24370780›Full record

ArticleNeuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology2014

Differential effects of systemic cholinergic receptor blockade on Pavlovian incentive motivation and goal-directed action selection.

Sean B Ostlund, Alisa R Kosheleff, Nigel T Maidment

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Article
  7. Nucleus Accumbens Acetylcholine Receptors Modulate Dopamine and Motivation.Neuropsychopharmacology : official publication of the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology · 2016
    Article
  8. Review
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Sean B Ostlund1] Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA [2] Brain Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Alisa R Kosheleff1] Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA [2] Brain Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.
Nigel T Maidment1] Department of Psychiatry and Biobehavioral Sciences, Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behavior, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA [2] Brain Research Institute, UCLA, Los Angeles, CA, USA.

Funding

The Role of Striosome Neurons in Mediating Opiod RewardP50DA005010 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI FANSELOW, MICHAEL S · 1987 to 2021
$30.7M
ROLE OF ENDOGENOUS OPIODS IN HEROIN ABUSER01DA009359 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI MAIDMENT, NIGEL T · 1995 to 2012
$2.3M
Cocaine-Seeking and the Transfer of Behavioral ControlR01DA029035 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES · PI OSTLUND, SEAN BJORN · 2011 to 2015
$1.5M
NIDA NIH HHS DA029035NIDA NIH HHS DA05010NIDA NIH HHS DA09359NIDA NIH HHS P50 DA005010NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA009359NIDA NIH HHS R01 DA029035
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Reward-seeking actions can be guided by external cues that signal reward availability. For instance, when confronted with a stimulus that signals sugar, rats will prefer an action that produces sugar over a second action that produces grain pellets. Action selection is also sensitive to changes in the incentive value of potential rewards. Thus, rats that have been prefed a large meal of sucrose will prefer a grain-seeking action to a sucrose-seeking action. The current study investigated the dependence of these different aspects of action selection on cholinergic transmission. Hungry rats were given differential training with two unique stimulus-outcome (S1-O1 and S2-O2) and action-outcome (A1-O1 and A2-O2) contingencies during separate training phases. Rats were then given a series of Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer tests, an assay of cue-triggered responding. Before each test, rats were injected with scopolamine (0, 0.03, or 0.1 mg/kg, intraperitoneally), a muscarinic receptor antagonist, or mecamylamine (0, 0.75, or 2.25 mg/kg, intraperitoneally), a nicotinic receptor antagonist. Although the reward-paired cues were capable of biasing action selection when rats were tested off-drug, both anticholinergic treatments were effective in disrupting this effect. During a subsequent round of outcome devaluation testing-used to assess the sensitivity of action selection to a change in reward value--we found no effect of either scopolamine or mecamylamine. These results reveal that cholinergic signaling at both muscarinic and nicotinic receptors mediates action selection based on Pavlovian reward expectations, but is not critical for flexibly selecting actions using current reward values.

Indexed as

GoalsAnimalsAnticipation, PsychologicalCholinergic AntagonistsConditioning, ClassicalCuesDecision MakingDietary SucroseFood PreferencesMaleMecamylamineMotivationMotor ActivityMuscarinic AntagonistsNicotinic AntagonistsRatsCholinergic AntagonistsDietary SucroseMecamylamineMuscarinic AntagonistsNicotinic AntagonistsScopolamine

Identifiers

PMID24370780
PMCPMC3988553

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.