Responding to preconditioned cues is devaluation sensitive and requires orbitofrontal cortex during cue-cue learning
- National Institute on Drug Abuse Intramural Research Program, National Institutes of Health, United States
- Department of Psychology, University of California, Los Angeles, United States
- Department of Neuroscience, Johns Hopkins School of Medicine, United States
- Department of Psychiatry, University of Maryland School of Medicine, United States
- Department of Anatomy and Neurobiology, University of Maryland School of Medicine, United States
Figures
Figure 1
Task schematic and histology.
(A) Task Schematic. Rats received value-neutral cue pairings during preconditioning. Light was delivered to eYFP control and NpHR rats during cue presentation. Reward conditioning occurred in phase two during which cue B was paired with sucrose pellets and Cue D was presented alone. Cues A and C were probed in phase 3. (B) Schematic reconstruction of fiber tip placements and viral expression in eYFP controls (left) and NpHR rats (right). Light shading indicates areas of minimal spread and dark shading areas of maximal spread. Black circles indicate fiber tip placements. (C) Representative photomicrographs of fiber placements and eYFP expression in lateral OFC.
Figure 2
OFC inhibition during preconditioning impairs value inference during the probe test.
(A) All rats showed low levels of responding during preconditioning when neutral cue pairs were presented. There was no effect of cue or group. (B) During reward conditioning, all rats (grey, eYFP; green, NpHR) showed higher responding to the rewarded cue B (solid lines) than to the non-rewarded cue D (dotted lines). (C) During the probe test, responding to A was higher than to C in control rats (eYFP, left, grey), but not in OFC inhibition rats (NpHR, right, green). (D) Scatter plot of A versus C responding during the probe test. To the extent that responding to A and C are equal, points should congregate along the diagonal. Points below the diagonal indicate A>C responding and therefore evidence of preconditioning.
-
Figure 2—source data 1
Source data for Figure 2.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/59998/elife-59998-fig2-data1-v2.xlsx
Figure 3
Responding to preconditioned cues in control rats is outcome devaluation sensitive.
(A) Rats that received LiCl and pellets unpaired (black) showed higher levels of responding to A during the first 2-trial block than rats that received them paired (grey). All rats quickly extinguished. (B) Average responses during the first 2-trial block. (C) Rats that received paired LiCl and pellets (left) consumed fewer pellets than rats that received them unpaired (right) during the consumption test.
-
Figure 3—source data 1
Source data for Figure 3.
- https://cdn.elifesciences.org/articles/59998/elife-59998-fig3-data1-v2.xlsx
Additional files
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)
Responding to preconditioned cues is devaluation sensitive and requires orbitofrontal cortex during cue-cue learning
eLife 9:e59998.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.59998
