Skip to main content

Final paper proposal and sources

By
For my final paper, I am interested in researching addiction behavior and specifically how well the paradigm of sign-tracking versus goal-tracking behavior models addiction. Of course, addiction is an extremely complex and multifaceted disorder to study and understand. With this in mind, I am aiming to isolate this specific behavior paradigm and evaluate 1) differences in how it is performed in animals, 2) the similarities or dissimilarities between conclusions across various studies as to what the paradigm represents and 3) its construct validity in modeling and/or predicting addiction behavior between animals and humans. 

The task in [1] involved a lever being pressed for food delivery. Sign-trackers primarily approached and contacted the lever (the input) while goal-trackers preferentially approached the site of food delivery (the output). When later trained on a choice task between receiving food or an infusion of cocaine, sign-trackers chose cocaine over food significantly more often. Their research question asked whether the tendency to sign-track to a food cue was predictive of rats’ choice of cocaine over food. 

A primary conclusion of [2] was that sign-tracking and goal-tracking behavior may be due to different structures and pathways in the brain which can lead to differences in the manifestation of addiction behavior. This study used a reward devaluation procedure (i.e. the reward was paired with illness in the absence of the conditioned stimulus) and examined whether sign- and goal-tracking behavior increased or decreased. 

[3] is a review article that covers a wide range of material that could be useful for finding other sources in the coming weeks. It also focuses on how sign-tracking influences gambling addiction, which was the original disorder that interested me in wanting to research this topic. One main conclusion the review suggests is that sign-tracking animals are especially vulnerable to addiction due to the attribution of incentive salience to drug cues. 

[4] is another review article that I find very relevant for how it bridges this research between animal models and human behavior. Along with the previous source, it is an extremely new paper and could be interesting to compare to older studies. Overall, the article looks at attributes of sign- and goal-tracking animal profiles with an emphasis on neurobiological and behavioral profiles that have the greatest relevance to human behaviors. 

[5] builds upon the concepts of source [2] in saying that sign-tracking and goal-tracking are governed by distinct neurochemical mechanisms. Their hypothesis was whether the use of distinct conditioned stimuli could have different neurochemical responses (i.e. recruit different dopamine receptor subtypes) that lead mice to develop one behavior type over the other. They show that the selective involvement of D2 activity in sign-tracking may reflect its importance in motivational processes while D1 is involved in both sign- and goal-tracking, reflecting its general role in learning associations. 

[1] Tunstall, B., & Kearns, D. (2015). Sign-tracking predicts increased choice of cocaine over food in rats. Behavioural Brain Research, 281(5), 222-228. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2014.12.034

[2] Morrison, S., Bamkole, M., & Nicola, S. (2015). Sign Tracking, but Not Goal Tracking, is Resistant to Outcome Devaluation. Frontiers in Neuroscience, 9, 468. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnins.2015.00468

[3] Anselme, P., & Robinson, M. (2020). From sign-tracking to attentional bias: Implications for gambling and substance use disorders. Progress in Neuropsychopharmacology & Biological Psychiatry, 99, 109861. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2020.109861

[4] Colaizzi, J., Flagel, S., Joyner, M., Gearhardt, A., Stewart, J., & Paulus, M. (2020). Mapping sign-tracking and goal-tracking onto human behaviors. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 111, 84-94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2020.01.018

[5] Roughley, S., & Killcross, S. (2019). Differential involvement of dopamine receptor subtypes in the acquisition of Pavlovian sign-tracking and goal-tracking responses. Psychopharmacology, 236(6), 1853-1862. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-019-5169-8

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Gut-Brain Interactions: Buffington et al, Reber et al 2016

By
April 13 Papers (Buffington et. al, Reber et. al) I found this week’s papers to be quite novel in that they both proposed potential treatments for neurodevelopmental or psychiatric disorders that target bacterial or microbial abnormalities and how these give rise to certain behavioral and physical symptoms associated with the disorders. I thought this was a very unusual yet interesting approach, and as I have not previously studied the gut-brain axis, these papers offered me a fresh perspective on researching psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders. They were also unconventional in their focus of the physical symptoms that often accompany mental disorders, as this is not something that I have seen many other papers touch upon very much. Particularly, I was surprised by the Reber et al paper’s focus on the link between psychiatric disorders and inflammation in organs other than the brain, such as the colon, and the Buffington et al paper’s description of a relationship between ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington et al. and Reber et al.: Gut-Brain Interactions

By
While I have not encountered a lot of gut-brain interaction literature yet. I found each paper unique and fascinating. Reber et al felt inaccessible for me. I felt like I didn’t understand what the goal of the paper really was and why they did the tests that they did. It seems like most of their relevant information got shoved into numerous supplementary figures and their behavior was quite difficult to follow. Multiple sections of their paper were supported with data found entirely in supplementary figures, which makes it difficult to follow the same conclusions. I have a few issues with the behavior they chose and because of this, I struggle to find driving conclusions from their work. I don’t understand why the CSC was not only the prior stressor but was also the acute stress condition both groups faced. To me, I feel like it would have made more sense to have the CSC be the prior stressor and then judge the effect on social behavior with maybe a three choice chamber test or te...
Post a Comment
Read more

Buffington et al (2016) and Reber et al. (2016)

By
This week's articles were about the role of the gut-brain axis in neurodevelopment and stress. Reber and colleagues used a heat-killed version of the bacteria, M. vaccae, as a type of vaccine and found that administration to mouse models resulted in decreased response to chronic stress, prevented colitis related to stress, and reduced measures of anxiety. Reber et al. also used the inactivated M. vaccae in a mouse model of IBD and found that the bacteria prevented stress-induce flare-ups of colitis, but that this could be reversed by removing T cells. Buffington and colleagues instead examined the role of gut microbiota in maternal high-fat diets (MHFD) in the neurodevelopment and social behaviors of their offspring. Buffington et al. found that housing MHFD rats with the offspring of regular diet (MRD) rats prevented social deficits in their offspring. They also found that this co-housing arrangement prevented an imbalance in the gut bacteria Reber and colleagues' findings w...
Post a Comment
Read more