Pramipexole-induced disruption of behavioral processes fundamental to intertemporal choice

A method for studying reinforcement factors controlling impulsive choice for use in behavioral neuroscience

Although procedures originating within the experimental analysis of behavior commonly are used in behavioral neuroscience to produce behavioral endpoints, they are used less often to analyze the behavioral processes involved, particularly at the level of individual organisms (see Soto, 2020). Concurrent-chains procedures have been used extensively to study choice and to quantify relations between various dimensions of reinforcement and preference. Unfortunately, parametric analysis of those relations using traditional steady-state, single-subject experimental designs can be time-consuming, often rendering these procedures impractical for use in behavioral neuroscience. The purpose of this paper is to describe how concurrent-chains procedures can be adapted to allow for parametric examination of effects of the reinforcement dimensions involved in impulsive choice (magnitude and delay) within experimental sessions in rats. Data are presented indicating that this procedure can produce relatively consistent within-session estimates of sensitivity to reinforcement in individual subjects, and that these estimates can be modified by neurobiological manipulation (drug administration). These data suggest that this type of procedure offers a promising approach to the study of neurobiological mechanisms of complex behavior in individual organisms, which could facilitate a more fruitful relationship between behavior analysis and behavioral neuroscience.

Effects of N-methyl-d-aspartate receptor (NMDAr) uncompetitive antagonists in a delay discounting paradigm using a concurrent-chains procedure

Impulsive choice is often assessed in rodents using a delay discounting (DD) paradigm in which the delay to a large reinforcer (LR) increases across the session. This procedure allows one to test the effects of pharmacological manipulations within a single session. Because discounting is influenced by sensitivity to reinforcer magnitude (SRM) and sensitivity to delayed reinforcement (SDR), applying quantitative analyses (e.g., fitting hyperbolic function) is important for determining the precise behavioral mechanisms being altered following drug administration. One caveat to this approach is that observing increases in SMR/SDR can be difficult (e.g., most rats choose the LR when its delivery is immediate, whereas some rats may show exclusive preference for the small reinforcer [SR] when a delay on the LR is imposed). We utilized a variant of a concurrent-chains procedure in which rats (n = 8) could not show exclusive preference for either reinforcer, thus allowing one to observe increases/decreases in responding at each delay. The NMDAr antagonists MK-801 (0, 0.003, 0.01, 0.03 mg/kg), ketamine (0, 1.0, 5.0, 10.0 mg/kg), and memantine (0, 2.5, 5.0, 7.5 mg/kg) were administered following baseline training because this receptor has recently been implicated in DD. MK-801 (0.03 mg/kg) decreased SRM and SDR. Memantine (7.5 mg/kg) decreased SRM only. These results show that this variant of the concurrent-chains procedure can be used to study the effects of pharmacological manipulations on distinct aspects of DD.

Dissecting drug effects in preclinical models of impulsive choice: emphasis on glutamatergic compounds

RATIONALE

Impulsive choice is often measured with delay discounting paradigms. Because there are multiple discounting procedures, as well as different statistical analyses that can be applied to data generated from these paradigms, there are some inconsistencies in the literature regarding drug effects on impulsive choice.

OBJECTIVES

The goal of the current paper is to review the methodological and analytic approaches used to measure discounting and to discuss how these differences can account for differential drug effects observed across studies.

RESULTS

Because some procedures/analyses use a single data point as the dependent variable, changes in this value following pharmacological treatment may be interpreted as alterations in sensitivity to delayed reinforcement, but when other procedures/analyses are used, no changes in behavior are observed. Even when multiple data points are included, some studies show that the statistical analysis (e.g., ANOVA on raw proportion of responses vs. using hyperbolic/exponential functions) can lead to different interpretations. Finally, procedural differences (e.g., delay presentation order, signaling the delay to reinforcement, etc.) in the same discounting paradigm can alter how drugs affect sensitivity to delayed reinforcement.

CONCLUSIONS

Future studies should utilize paradigms that allow one to observe alterations in responding at each delay (e.g., concurrent-chains schedules). Concerning statistical analyses, using parameter estimates derived from nonlinear functions or incorporating the generalized matching law can allow one to determine if drugs affect sensitivity to delayed reinforcement or impair discrimination of the large and small magnitude reinforcers. Using these approaches can help further our understanding of the neurochemical underpinnings of delay discounting.

Pramipexole enhances disadvantageous decision-making: Lack of relation to changes in phasic dopamine release

Pramipexole (PPX) is a high-affinity D₂-like dopamine receptor agonist, used in the treatment of Parkinson's disease (PD) and restless leg syndrome. Recent evidence indicates that PPX increases the risk of problem gambling and impulse-control disorders in vulnerable patients. Although the molecular bases of these complications remain unclear, several authors have theorized that PPX may increase risk propensity by activating presynaptic dopamine receptors in the mesolimbic system, resulting in the reduction of dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc). To test this possibility, we subjected rats to a probability-discounting task specifically designed to capture the response to disadvantageous options. PPX enhanced disadvantageous decision-making at a dose (0.3 mg/kg/day, SC) that reduced phasic dopamine release in the NAcc. To test whether these modifications in dopamine efflux were responsible for the observed neuroeconomic deficits, PPX was administered in combination with the monoamine-depleting agent reserpine (RES), at a low dose (1 mg/kg/day, SC) that did not affect baseline locomotor and operant responses. Contrary to our predictions, RES surprisingly exacerbated the effects of PPX on disadvantageous decision-making, even though it failed to augment PPX-induced decreases in phasic dopamine release. These results collectively suggest that PPX impairs the discounting of probabilistic losses and that the enhancement in risk-taking behaviors secondary to this drug may be dissociated from dynamic changes in mesolimbic dopamine release.

Impulsive choice, alcohol consumption, and pre-exposure to delayed rewards: II. Potential mechanisms

In a prior study (Stein et al., 2013), we reported that rats pre-exposed to delayed rewards made fewer impulsive choices, but consumed more alcohol (12% wt/vol), than rats pre-exposed to immediate rewards. To understand the mechanisms that produced these findings, we again pre-exposed rats to either delayed (17.5 s; n=32) or immediate (n=30) rewards. In posttests, delay-exposed rats made significantly fewer impulsive choices at 15- and 30-s delays to a larger, later food reward than the immediacy-exposed comparison group. Behavior in an open-field test provided little evidence of differential stress exposure between groups. Further, consumption of either 12% alcohol or isocaloric sucrose in subsequent tests did not differ between groups. Because Stein et al. introduced alcohol concentration gradually (3-12%), we speculate that their group differences in 12% alcohol consumption were not determined by alcohol's pharmacological effects, but by another variable (e.g., taste) that was preserved as an artifact from lower concentrations. We conclude that pre-exposure to delayed rewards generalizes beyond the pre-exposure delay; however, this same experimental variable does not robustly influence alcohol consumption.