1. Neuroscience

Punishment insensitivity emerges from impaired contingency detection, not aversion insensitivity or reward dominance

  1. Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel
  2. Cassandra Ma
  3. Laura A Bradfield
  4. Simon Killcross
  5. Gavan P McNally  Is a corresponding author
  1. University of New South Wales, Australia
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52765
Share this article
Cite this article
  1. Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel
  2. Cassandra Ma
  3. Laura A Bradfield
  4. Simon Killcross
  5. Gavan P McNally
(2019)
Punishment insensitivity emerges from impaired contingency detection, not aversion insensitivity or reward dominance
eLife 8:e52765.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52765
  2. Download BibTeX
  3. Download .RIS

Abstract

Our behaviour is shaped by its consequences – we seek rewards and avoid harm. It has been reported that individuals vary markedly in their avoidance of detrimental consequences, i.e. in their sensitivity to punishment. The underpinnings of this variability are poorly understood; they may be driven by differences in aversion sensitivity, motivation for reward, and/or instrumental control. We examined these hypotheses by applying several analysis strategies to the behaviour of rats (n = 48; 18 female) trained in a conditioned punishment task that permitted concurrent assessment of punishment, reward-seeking, and Pavlovian fear. We show that punishment insensitivity is a unique phenotype, unrelated to differences in reward-seeking and Pavlovian fear, and due to a failure of instrumental control. Subjects insensitive to punishment are afraid of aversive events, they are simply unable to change their behaviour to avoid them.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript in Figure 1. Source data files, for all figures, have been provided.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel

    School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0002-0898-8987

  2. Cassandra Ma

    School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  3. Laura A Bradfield

    School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-3921-0745

  4. Simon Killcross

    School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

  5. Gavan P McNally

    School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
    For correspondence
    g.mcnally@unsw.edu.au
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-9061-6463

Funding

Australian Research Council (DP190100482)

  • Gavan P McNally

Australian Research Council (DP170100075)

  • Gavan P McNally

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Geoffrey Schoenbaum, National Institute on Drug Abuse, National Institutes of Health, United States

Ethics

Animal experimentation: All procedures were approved by the UNSW Animal Ethics Committee (AEC) (ACEC16/160B) and in accordance with the code set out by the National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) for the treatment of animals in research.

Version history

  1. Received: October 16, 2019
  2. Accepted: November 21, 2019
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: November 26, 2019 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: December 3, 2019 (version 2)

Copyright

© 2019, Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 2,613
    views
  • 285
    downloads
  • 38
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Cite this article (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

  1. Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel
  2. Cassandra Ma
  3. Laura A Bradfield
  4. Simon Killcross
  5. Gavan P McNally
(2019)
Punishment insensitivity emerges from impaired contingency detection, not aversion insensitivity or reward dominance
eLife 8:e52765.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52765

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.52765

Categories and tags

Research organism

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience

    Punishment insensitivity in humans is due to failures in instrumental contingency learning

    Philip Jean-Richard-dit-Bressel, Jessica C Lee ... Gavan P McNally
    Research Advance

    Punishment maximises the probability of our individual survival by reducing behaviours that cause us harm, and also sustains trust and fairness in groups essential for social cohesion. However, some individuals are more sensitive to punishment than others and these differences in punishment sensitivity have been linked to a variety of decision-making deficits and psychopathologies. The mechanisms for why individuals differ in punishment sensitivity are poorly understood, although recent studies of conditioned punishment in rodents highlight a key role for punishment contingency detection (Jean-Richard-Dit-Bressel et al., 2019). Here, we applied a novel ‘Planets and Pirates’ conditioned punishment task in humans, allowing us to identify the mechanisms for why individuals differ in their sensitivity to punishment. We show that punishment sensitivity is bimodally distributed in a large sample of normal participants. Sensitive and insensitive individuals equally liked reward and showed similar rates of reward-seeking. They also equally disliked punishment and did not differ in their valuation of cues that signalled punishment. However, sensitive and insensitive individuals differed profoundly in their capacity to detect and learn volitional control over aversive outcomes. Punishment insensitive individuals did not learn the instrumental contingencies, so they could not withhold behaviour that caused punishment and could not generate appropriately selective behaviours to prevent impending punishment. These differences in punishment sensitivity could not be explained by individual differences in behavioural inhibition, impulsivity, or anxiety. This bimodal punishment sensitivity and these deficits in instrumental contingency learning are identical to those dictating punishment sensitivity in non-human animals, suggesting that they are general properties of aversive learning and decision-making.

    1. Neuroscience

    Selective recruitment of the cerebellum evidenced by task-dependent gating of inputs

    Ladan Shahshahani, Maedbh King ... Jörn Diedrichsen
    Research Article

    Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have documented cerebellar activity across a wide array of tasks. However, the functional contribution of the cerebellum within these task domains remains unclear because cerebellar activity is often studied in isolation. This is problematic, as cerebellar fMRI activity may simply reflect the transmission of neocortical activity through fixed connections. Here, we present a new approach that addresses this problem. Rather than focus on task-dependent activity changes in the cerebellum alone, we ask if neocortical inputs to the cerebellum are gated in a task-dependent manner. We hypothesize that input is upregulated when the cerebellum functionally contributes to a task. We first validated this approach using a finger movement task, where the integrity of the cerebellum has been shown to be essential for the coordination of rapid alternating movements but not for force generation. While both neocortical and cerebellar activity increased with increasing speed and force, the speed-related changes in the cerebellum were larger than predicted by an optimized cortico-cerebellar connectivity model. We then applied the same approach in a cognitive domain, assessing how the cerebellum supports working memory. Enhanced gating was associated with the encoding of items in working memory, but not with the manipulation or retrieval of the items. Focusing on task-dependent gating of neocortical inputs to the cerebellum offers a promising approach for using fMRI to understand the specific contributions of the cerebellum to cognitive function.

    1. Neuroscience

    Connectomes: Mapping the fly nerve cord

    Anna Seggewisse, Michael Winding
    Insight

    The first neuronal wiring diagram of an insect nerve cord, which includes biological information on cell type and organisation, enables further investigation into premotor circuit function.