The basolateral nucleus of the amygdala regulates both the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Reward-associated stimuli can acquire both predictive and incentive motivational properties. These conditioned stimuli (CS) can then guide reward-seeking behaviour in adaptive (e.g., locating food) and maladaptive (e.g., binge eating) ways. The basolateral amygdala (BLA) contributes to learning of the predictive value of CS, but less is known about BLA contributions to the incentive motivational properties of appetitive CS. Here we studied the influence of BLA neuron activity on both the predictive and incentive motivational effects of CS. Water-restricted male rats learned to associate a light-tone cue (CS) with water delivery into a port. We assessed the predictive value to the CS by measuring CS-evoked port entries during Pavlovian conditioning. We assessed CS-evoked incentive motivation by measuring lever-pressing for the CS during instrumental responding sessions. During Pavlovian conditioning, we paired CS presentations with photo-stimulation of channelrhodopsin-2 (ChR2)-expressing BLA neurons. This potentiated CS-evoked port entries during conditioning, but suppressed subsequent lever-pressing for the CS. This indicates increased conditioned responding to the CS, but an apparent decrease in incentive motivation for that CS. However, in rats previously naïve to photo-stimulation, pairing BLA-ChR2 stimulations during lever-pressing for the CS intensified responding, indicating enhanced motivation for the CS. Rats did not self-administer BLA-ChR2 stimulations, suggesting that BLA activation does not carry a primary reward signal. Lastly, intra-BLA infusions of d-amphetamine also intensified lever-pressing for the CS. These converging findings suggest that BLA mediated-activity enhances both the predictive and incentive motivational properties of CS, allowing BLA-dependent circuits to guide behaviour in the presence of reward-associated cues. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT Cues paired with rewards can guide animals to valuable resources such as food. Cues can also promote dysfunctional reward-seeking behaviour, as in over-eating. Reward-paired cues influence reward seeking through two major mechanisms. First, reward-paired cues are predictive and thus evoke anticipation of future rewards. Second, reward-paired cues are powerful motivators and they can evoke pursuit in their own right. Here we show that increasing neural activity in the basolateral amygdala enhances both the predictive and motivational effects of reward-paired cues. The basolateral amygdala therefore facilitates cue-induced control over behaviour by both increasing anticipation for impending rewards and making reward cues more attractive.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".