Pattern of rewarding stimulation affects the development of conditioned taste preferences

Controllability of prestimulation of the medial prefrontal cortex determines the facilitation of self-stimulation and kindled seizures

Electrical stimulation of the medial prefrontal cortex (MPC) was administered according to the triadic design typically used to demonstrate learned helplessness. Three groups received either controllable, uncontrollable or no stimulation during the pretreatment phase. The effects of this pretreatment on the acquisition of self-stimulation at the same electrode site were investigated in the second phase of the experiment. Relative to unstimulated controls, both controllable and uncontrollable prestimulation facilitated the acquisition of self-stimulation and produced higher self-stimulation rates. In addition, compared with controllable stimulation, pretreatment with uncontrollable stimulation produced a greater facilitation in self-stimulation rate. The unambiguous demonstration of a behavioural facilitation produced by pretreatment with uncontrollable stimulation is, effectively, the inverse of the typical learned helplessness finding. It was also found, in the second phase of the experiment, that 6 of the 7 rats previously exposed to uncontrollable stimulation developed full class 5 seizures. No behavioural evidence of kindling was seen in any of the other rats or during the prestimulation procedure. These data are interpreted in terms of kindling and stress effects both proximal and distal to the site of stimulation.

An investigation of the factors affecting development of frontal cortex self-stimulation

Intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) of the medial prefrontal cortex (MFC) is acquired gradually, taking 4 or more days to establish. One explanation for this finding is that the stimulation becomes more rewarding with repetition. Four experiments were conducted to test this hypotheses. In Experiment 1, the MFC ICSS frequency thresholds remained constant over the first 3 weeks of testing while the rate of lever pressing response increased. In Experiment 2, it was found that acquisition of MFC ICSS was much more rapid when a motorically simpler response (nose-poking) was employed. Similarly, Experiments 3 and 4 further demonstrated that response factors such as task complexity may ultimately determine the rate of development of frontal cortex ICSS. Overall, these data suggest that independent of the rewarding effects of MFC stimulation there are other effects that initially interfere with learning of complex operant responses.

Discriminating between reward and performance: a critical review of intracranial self-stimulation methodology

Despite numerous pharmacological investigations of intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS), the substrates of this behavior have yet to be completely understood. In view of the likelihood that inadequate methodology has hindered the quest for these substrates, the present review was undertaken. Criteria for ICSS methodology should include not only the ability to discriminate reward from gross performance deficit, but also adequate capacity (ability to generate experimental data at a reasonable rate). For numerous reasons, bar-pressing on a continuous reinforcement schedule fails the first criterion despite its ease and rapidity. The use of partial reinforcement schedules may alleviate some of these shortcomings. Analysis of drug-induced response decrement patterns can discriminate gross motoric incapacity from other variables, although the question of subtle response maintenance deficits remains to be answered. Measurements of response rates using alternative operants do not differentiate reward and performance adequately. More promising, "rate-free" measures using locomotion as an operant include the two-platform method of Valenstein and the "locus of rise" method. Comparison of drug effects on ICSS with those on alternate tasks are fraught with pitfalls including the problems of assuring equivalent rates and patterns of responding. The use of differential electrode placements is ideally suited for neurochemically well-characterized drugs, particularly if "double dissociations" can be established during studies of multiple placements. Presentation of different current intensities or frequencies permits the compilation of rate-intensity functions, and drug-induced shifts in these functions have considerable analytical power. Self-regulation of current intensity constitutes a powerful tool that has yet to realize its full potential in the pharmacological study of ICSS. Extensive studies involving self-regulation of stimulation duration ("shuttlebox" studies) suggest that this method may be highly versatile despite several practical difficulties. It is concluded that at least six of these methods appear to do a reasonable job of excluding gross performance deficit. However, the possible influences of other factors, such as subtle response maintenance deficit, incentive or arousal, remain to be resolved in view of the multifactorial nature of ICSS. Multiple tests for ICSS drug or lesion studies are advocated whenever feasible, as no single test appears capable of resolving all theoretical complexities.

Stimulation parameters influence response involvement in reinforcing brain stimulation

Rats pressed a lever for brain stimulation in the start box of a T-maze. Pulse trains of stimulation were available under various temporal schedules. Periods of self-stimulation (SS) alternated with intervals of experimenter-administered stimulation (EAS) during which identical stimulation was automatically delivered at the same average rate as during SS periods. Rats could terminate the on going EAS by traversing the maze and making a turn into the correct arm, thereby reinstating the availability of a SS period. Experiments 1 and 2 demonstrated that manipulations of either the intertrain interval or the train duration, which are parameters that regulate the temporal density of stimulation, influenced the latency to terminate intervals of EAS. Experiment 3 showed that omitting the stimulation during the EAS period of the standard SS-EAS cycle disrupted the resetting behaviour of the experienced rats. They required as many sessions as naive rats to learn the behaviour required to circumvent the EAS-free period. The data suggest that the behaviour patterns exhibited are dependent upon the buildup of activity that is largely influenced by the total neural activity summated across pulse train(s) of stimulation. The behaviour to terminate the EAS occurs as a consequence of an aversive effect which is concurrently produced by the rewarding stimulation. This aversive effect is attenuated by responding.