TY - JOUR
T1 - Validation and extension of the reward-mountain model
AU - Breton, Yannick-Andre
AU - Mullett, Ada
AU - Conover, Kent
AU - Shizgal, Peter
PY - 2013
Y1 - 2013
N2 - The reward-mountain model relates the vigor of reward seeking to the strength and cost of reward. Application of this model provides information about the stage of processing at which manipulations such as drug administration, lesions, deprivation states, and optogenetic interventions act to alter reward seeking. The model has been updated by incorporation of new information about frequency following in the directly stimulated neurons responsible for brain stimulation reward and about the function that maps objective opportunity costs into subjective ones. The behavioral methods for applying the model have been updated and improved as well. To assess the impact of these changes, two related predictions of the model that were supported by earlier work have been retested: (1) altering the duration of rewarding brain stimulation should change the pulse frequency required to produce a reward of half-maximal intensity, and (2) this manipulation should not change the opportunity cost at which half-maximal performance is directed at earning a maximally intense reward. Prediction 1 was supported in all six subjects, but prediction 2 was supported in only three. The latter finding is interpreted to reflect recruitment, at some stimulation sites, of a heterogeneous reward substrate comprising dual, parallel circuits that integrate the stimulation-induced neural signals.
AB - The reward-mountain model relates the vigor of reward seeking to the strength and cost of reward. Application of this model provides information about the stage of processing at which manipulations such as drug administration, lesions, deprivation states, and optogenetic interventions act to alter reward seeking. The model has been updated by incorporation of new information about frequency following in the directly stimulated neurons responsible for brain stimulation reward and about the function that maps objective opportunity costs into subjective ones. The behavioral methods for applying the model have been updated and improved as well. To assess the impact of these changes, two related predictions of the model that were supported by earlier work have been retested: (1) altering the duration of rewarding brain stimulation should change the pulse frequency required to produce a reward of half-maximal intensity, and (2) this manipulation should not change the opportunity cost at which half-maximal performance is directed at earning a maximally intense reward. Prediction 1 was supported in all six subjects, but prediction 2 was supported in only three. The latter finding is interpreted to reflect recruitment, at some stimulation sites, of a heterogeneous reward substrate comprising dual, parallel circuits that integrate the stimulation-induced neural signals.
KW - Brain stimulation reward
KW - Intracranial self-stimulation
KW - Medial forebrain bundle
KW - Temporal integration
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886287760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84886287760&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00125
DO - 10.3389/fnbeh.2013.00125
M3 - Article
C2 - 24098275
AN - SCOPUS:84886287760
SN - 1662-5153
JO - Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
JF - Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience
IS - OCT
M1 - 125
ER -