Assaying the effect of levodopa on the evaluation of risk in healthy humans

Towards a Unifying Account of Dopamine’s Role in Cost-Benefit Decision Making

Dopamine is thought to play a crucial role in cost-benefit decision making, but so far there is no consensus on the precise role of dopamine in decision making. Here, we review the literature on dopaminergic manipulations of cost-benefit decision making in humans and evaluate how well different theoretical accounts explain the existing body of evidence. Reduced D₂ stimulation tends to increase the willingness to bear delay and risk costs (i.e., wait for later rewards, take riskier options), while increased D₁ and D₂ receptor stimulation increases willingness to bear effort costs. We argue that the empirical findings can best be explained by combining the strengths of two theoretical accounts: in cost-benefit decision making, dopamine may play a dual role both in promoting the pursuit of psychologically close options (e.g., sooner and safer rewards) and in computing which costs are acceptable for a reward at stake. Moreover, we identify several limiting factors in the study designs of previous investigations that prevented a fuller understanding of dopamine's role in value-based choice. Together, the proposed theoretical framework and the methodological suggestions for future studies may bring us closer to a unifying account of dopamine in healthy and impaired cost-benefit decision making.

Dopamine increases risky choice while D2 blockade shortens decision time

Dopamine is crucially involved in decision-making and overstimulation within dopaminergic pathways can lead to impulsive behaviour, including a desire to take risks and reduced deliberation before acting. These behavioural changes are side effects of treatment with dopaminergic drugs in Parkinson disease, but their likelihood of occurrence is difficult to predict and may be influenced by the individual's baseline endogenous dopamine state, and indeed correlate with sensation-seeking personality traits. We here collected data on a standard gambling task in healthy volunteers given either placebo, 2.5 mg of the dopamine antagonist haloperidol or 100/25 mg of the dopamine precursor levodopa in a within-subject design. We found an increase in risky choices on levodopa. Choices were, however, made faster on haloperidol with no effect of levodopa on deliberation time. Shortened deliberation times on haloperidol occurred in low sensation-seekers only, suggesting a correlation between sensation-seeking personality trait and baseline dopamine levels. We hypothesise that levodopa increases risk-taking behaviour via overstimulation at both D1 and D2 receptor level, while a single low dose of haloperidol, as previously reported (Frank and O'Reilly 2006), may block D2 receptors pre- and post-synaptically and may paradoxically lead to higher striatal dopamine acting on remaining striatal D1 receptors, causing speedier decision without influencing risk tolerance. These effects could also fit with a recently proposed computational model of the basal ganglia (Moeller and Bogacz 2019; Moeller et al. 2021). Furthermore, our data suggest that the actual dopaminergic drug effect may be dependent on the individual's baseline dopamine state, which may influence our therapeutic decision as clinicians in the future.

Using pharmacological manipulations to study the role of dopamine in human reward functioning: A review of studies in healthy adults

Dopamine (DA) plays a key role in reward processing and is implicated in psychological disorders such as depression, substance use, and schizophrenia. The role of DA in reward processing is an area of highly active research. One approach to this question is drug challenge studies with drugs known to alter DA function. These studies provide good experimental control and can be performed in parallel in laboratory animals and humans. This review aimed to summarize results of studies using pharmacological manipulations of DA in healthy adults. 'Reward' is a complex process, so we separated 'phases' of reward, including anticipation, evaluation of cost and benefits of upcoming reward, execution of actions to obtain reward, pleasure in response to receiving a reward, and reward learning. Results indicated that i) DAergic drugs have different effects on different phases of reward; ii) the relationship between DA and reward functioning appears unlikely to be linear; iii) our ability to detect the effects of DAergic drugs varies depending on whether subjective, behavioral, imaging measures are used.

Drugs-Induced Pathological Gambling: An Analysis of Italian Spontaneous Reporting System

Pathological gambling has been reported as a direct complication of Parkinson’s disease and its pharmacological treatment based on dopamine agonists. Moreover, further medications (not dopamine agonists) were associated to the occurrence of gambling disorder. We aim to analyze the spontaneous reports of gambling disorder on the whole Italian territory with a focus on Campania Region (Southern Italy) from January 1st 2002 to July 31st 2018. We analyzed gambling disorder’s reports across the 2002–2018 period in the Italian spontaneous reporting database (Rete Nazionale di Farmacovigilanza—RNF), with a focus on Campania region. 94 suspected cases of gambling disorder associated to apomorphine, aripiprazole, cabergoline, levodopa, levodopa and derivatives in association with entacapone/benserazide and carbidopa, pergolide, pramipexole, ropinirole, and rotigotine were reported into the RNF. Of these cases, two related to pramipexole and one to aripiprazole were sent to Campania Pharmacovigilance Regional Centre. Although it is widely recognized that dopamine agonists may induce behavioral disorders, Parkinson’s disease is itself associated to pathological gambling, compulsive shopping and eating. Since our results could not clarify the correlation between Parkinson’s disease, its pharmacological treatment and pathological gambling, in order to better define this correlation there is a need to conduct further ad hoc observational studies.

Baseline impulsivity may moderate L-DOPA effects on value-based decision-making

Research has indicated a major role of dopamine in decision-making processes, but the underlying mechanisms remain largely unknown due to inconsistency in effects of dopaminergic drugs. To clarify the impact of dopamine on impulsive choice, we administered 150 mg L-DOPA to 87 healthy adults in a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blind, crossover study, evaluating performance in four value-based decision-making tasks. We predicted that baseline impulsivity would moderate L-DOPA effects. In support of our hypothesis, L-DOPA had no main effect on impulsive choice, but reduced risk-seeking for gains in more-impulsive subjects. Because L-DOPA effects may be influenced by body weight, we repeated our analyses on data from half of the sample (n = 44) with lower weight, anticipating a stronger effect. In addition to the effect on risk-seeking for gains, low-weight participants also exhibited baseline-dependent effects of L-DOPA on loss aversion and delay discounting. Our results are consistent with the hypothesis of an inverted U-shaped dopamine function in which both low and high extremes of dopamine signaling are associated with high-impulsive choice. Consideration of differential baseline impulsivity and body weight may resolve previous seemingly paradoxical pharmacological results and might deepen our understanding of dopaminergic mechanisms underlying impulsivity.

A proof-of-principle study of the effect of combined haloperidol and levodopa administration on working memory-related brain activation in humans

OBJECTIVE

Cognitive deficits including impaired working memory are a hallmark feature of schizophrenia. Dopamine D1 receptor modulated changes in prefrontal cortex function play a potentially important role in the pathology underlying such deficits. However, pharmacological interventions that selectively engage the D1 receptor are severely restricted for research in humans. The present study is a proof-of-principle for enhancing cognitive performance and associated brain activation via indirect D1 stimulation, operationalised by combining the nonselective dopamine agonist L-dopa with the D2-antagonist haloperidol.

METHODS

Fourteen healthy volunteers received placebo or combined carbidopa (25 mg)/L-dopa (100 mg) plus haloperidol (2 mg) orally on two separate occasions according to a within-subjects crossover design. Drug-induced differences in brain activity were assessed during an N-back working memory task in a 3T magnetic resonance imaging environment.

RESULTS

Drug treatment was associated with greater functional connectivity between the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex and areas within the salience network during all N-back trials. Drug treatment was also associated with reduced activation, most prominently in the occipital/temporal brain areas during 2-back performance.

CONCLUSIONS

This preliminary study provides initial evidence for combined L-dopa/haloperidol modulation in cognition-related brain areas and networks, which is relevant for the treatment of cognitive impairments in mental illness.

Dopaminergic Modulation of Decision Making and Subjective Well-Being

The neuromodulator dopamine has a well established role in reporting appetitive prediction errors that are widely considered in terms of learning. However, across a wide variety of contexts, both phasic and tonic aspects of dopamine are likely to exert more immediate effects that have been less well characterized. Of particular interest is dopamine's influence on economic risk taking and on subjective well-being, a quantity known to be substantially affected by prediction errors resulting from the outcomes of risky choices. By boosting dopamine levels using levodopa (l-DOPA) as human subjects made economic decisions and repeatedly reported their momentary happiness, we show here an effect on both choices and happiness. Boosting dopamine levels increased the number of risky options chosen in trials involving potential gains but not trials involving potential losses. This effect could be better captured as increased Pavlovian approach in an approach-avoidance decision model than as a change in risk preferences within an established prospect theory model. Boosting dopamine also increased happiness resulting from some rewards. Our findings thus identify specific novel influences of dopamine on decision making and emotion that are distinct from its established role in learning.

Dopaminergic modulation of the trade-off between probability and time in economic decision-making

Studies on animals and humans have demonstrated the importance of dopamine in modulating decision-making processes. In this work, we have tested dopaminergic modulation of economic decision-making and its neural correlates by administering either placebo or metoclopramide, a dopamine D2-receptor antagonist, to healthy subjects, during a functional MRI study. The decision-making task combined probability and time delay with a fixed monetary reward. For individual behavioral characterization, we used the Probability Time Trade-off (PTT) economic model, which integrates the traditional trade-offs of reward magnitude-time and reward magnitude-probability into a single measurement, thereby quantifying the subjective value of a delayed and probabilistic outcome. A regression analysis between BOLD signal and the PTT model index permitted to identify the neural substrate encoding the subjective reward-value. Behaviorally, medication reduced the rate of temporal discounting over probability, reflected in medicated subjects being more prone to postpone the reward in order to increase the outcome probability. In addition, medicated subjects showed less activity during the task in the postcentral gyrus as well as frontomedian areas, whereas there were no differences in the ventromedial orbitofrontal cortex (VMOFC) between groups when coding the subjective value. The present study demonstrates by means of behavior and imaging that dopamine modulation alters the probability-time trade-off in human economic decision-making.

Maintaining homeostasis by decision-making

Living organisms need to maintain energetic homeostasis. For many species, this implies taking actions with delayed consequences. For example, humans may have to decide between foraging for high-calorie but hard-to-get, and low-calorie but easy-to-get food, under threat of starvation. Homeostatic principles prescribe decisions that maximize the probability of sustaining appropriate energy levels across the entire foraging trajectory. Here, predictions from biological principles contrast with predictions from economic decision-making models based on maximizing the utility of the endpoint outcome of a choice. To empirically arbitrate between the predictions of biological and economic models for individual human decision-making, we devised a virtual foraging task in which players chose repeatedly between two foraging environments, lost energy by the passage of time, and gained energy probabilistically according to the statistics of the environment they chose. Reaching zero energy was framed as starvation. We used the mathematics of random walks to derive endpoint outcome distributions of the choices. This also furnished equivalent lotteries, presented in a purely economic, casino-like frame, in which starvation corresponded to winning nothing. Bayesian model comparison showed that--in both the foraging and the casino frames--participants' choices depended jointly on the probability of starvation and the expected endpoint value of the outcome, but could not be explained by economic models based on combinations of statistical moments or on rank-dependent utility. This implies that under precisely defined constraints biological principles are better suited to explain human decision-making than economic models based on endpoint utility maximization.

Impulsive actions and choices in laboratory animals and humans: effects of high vs. low dopamine states produced by systemic treatments given to neurologically intact subjects

Increases and decreases in dopamine (DA) transmission have both been suggested to influence reward-related impulse-control. The present literature review suggests that, in laboratory animals, the systemic administration of DA augmenters preferentially increases susceptibility to premature responding; with continued DA transmission, reward approach behaviors are sustained. Decreases in DA transmission, in comparison, diminish the appeal of distal and difficult to obtain rewards, thereby increasing susceptibility to temporal discounting and other forms of impulsive choice. The evidence available in humans is not incompatible with this model but is less extensive.