Basolateral Amygdala Projections to the Prelimbic Cortex Suppress the Motivational Value of Reward-Associated Cues
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Reward-associated cues drive reward-seeking behaviours, with different cue types taking on distinct associative meanings. In instrumental settings, discriminative stimuli (DSs) signal when a response will produce reward, while conditioned stimuli (CSs) are paired with reward delivery after responding. Basolateral amygdala (BLA) projections are known to mediate CS-guided reward seeking, but their role in DS-guided behaviour remains unclear despite DSs being uniquely effective in triggering reward seeking. Here, we used optogenetic stimulation of BLA projections to the nucleus accumbens (NAc) core or prelimbic cortex (PrL) to probe their causal involvement in DS- and CS-guided sucrose seeking. Female and male rats learned to lever press during DS+ trials to obtain sucrose paired with a CS+, and to withhold responding during DS-trials where sucrose was unavailable. We then assessed sucrose seeking evoked by response-independent DS+ and CS+ presentations, without sucrose. The DS+ prompted the greatest increases in lever pressing, acting as a strong Pavlovian conditioned excitor. Cue-paired photostimulation of BLA→NAc core or BLA→PrL projections did not alter this effect. In a test of instrumental responding for conditioned reinforcement, rats lever pressed most for DS+ and CS+ presentations, with no effect of cue-type, indicating that the two cues gained comparable conditioned reinforcing value. While cue-paired photostimulation of BLA→NAc core neurons had no impact, photostimulation of BLA→PrL projections suppressed instrumental responding for both the DS+ and CS+. These findings reveal the BLA→PrL pathway as a key regulator that constrains control over behaviour by reward-associated cues, making them less desirable and reducing their motivational effects.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".