Criteria for ruling out sedation as an interpretation of neuroleptic effects

Dopamine and reward: the anhedonia hypothesis 30 years on

The anhedonia hypothesis--that brain dopamine plays a critical role in the subjective pleasure associated with positive rewards--was intended to draw the attention of psychiatrists to the growing evidence that dopamine plays a critical role in the objective reinforcement and incentive motivation associated with food and water, brain stimulation reward, and psychomotor stimulant and opiate reward. The hypothesis called to attention the apparent paradox that neuroleptics, drugs used to treat a condition involving anhedonia (schizophrenia), attenuated in laboratory animals the positive reinforcement that we normally associate with pleasure. The hypothesis held only brief interest for psychiatrists, who pointed out that the animal studies reflected acute actions of neuroleptics whereas the treatment of schizophrenia appears to result from neuroadaptations to chronic neuroleptic administration, and that it is the positive symptoms of schizophrenia that neuroleptics alleviate, rather than the negative symptoms that include anhedonia. Perhaps for these reasons, the hypothesis has had minimal impact in the psychiatric literature. Despite its limited heuristic value for the understanding of schizophrenia, however, the anhedonia hypothesis has had major impact on biological theories of reinforcement, motivation, and addiction. Brain dopamine plays a very important role in reinforcement of response habits, conditioned preferences, and synaptic plasticity in cellular models of learning and memory. The notion that dopamine plays a dominant role in reinforcement is fundamental to the psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction, to most neuroadaptation theories of addiction, and to current theories of conditioned reinforcement and reward prediction. Properly understood, it is also fundamental to recent theories of incentive motivation.

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.