Incredibly, and it is a less helpful conditioned reinforcer. As a result, while
Incredibly, and it’s a much less powerful conditioned reinforcer. Thus, while the cue is an equally powerful CS in STs and GTs it reliably evokes a conditioned response in each it becomes a much more eye-catching and “wanted” incentive stimulus in STs than GTs (Flagel et al. 2007; Meyer et al. 202a; Robinson and Flagel 2009; Yager and Robinson 200). Importantly, the propensity to attribute incentive salience to a meals cue predicts the extent to which drug cues obtain motivational properties (for reviews see Flagel et al. 2009; Robinson et al. 204; Saunders and Robinson 203). Most previous research examining individual variation within the extent to which drug cues can motivate behavior have focused on cues connected with cocaine. As an example, a cocaineassociated cue is additional attractive, eliciting more avid method behavior, in STs than in GTs (Flagel et al. 200; Yager and Robinson 203), and also far more desired, inside the sense that it acts as a much more potent conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs (Meyer et al. 202b; Saunders and Robinson 200; Yager and Robinson 203). Moreover, a discrete cocaine cue produces greater reinstatement of drugseeking behavior in STs than in GTs, and this really is correct irrespective of whether the cocaine cue acquired its motivational properties in an instrumental (i.e classic selfadministration paradigm) setting, or utilizing Pavlovian conditioning procedures (Saunders and Robinson 200; Saunders et al. 203; Yager and Robinson 203). Much more recently, we found comparable variation inside the motivational properties of an opioid (remifentanil) cue. A discrete light cue linked with intravenous injections of remifentanil is each far more attractive and also a more efficient conditioned reinforcer in STs than GTs (Yager et al. 205). Here we asked whether this variation extends to an further class of drug that is broadly employed, nicotine. Nicotine is particularly interesting since it is thought to be a comparatively PubMed ID:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25870032 weak principal reinforcer, in the sense that it’s not as avidly selfadministered as a number of other drugs, unless cues accompany nicotine delivery (Caggiula et al. 200; 2002; Chaudhri et al. 2006b; Rupprecht et al. 205; c.f. DerocheGamonet, 2002). Thus, utilizing rats, we asked no matter if men and women that vary in their propensity to attribute incentive salience to a meals cue (i.e STs vs. GTs) also vary in how avidly they strategy andor work for presentation of a nicotine cue.Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author Manuscript Author ManuscriptPsychopharmacology (Berl). Author manuscript; offered in PMC 206 September 0.Yager and BMS-687453 price RobinsonPageMethodsSubjects Male SpragueDawley rats (initial N 200; Harlan, Haslett, Michigan) weighing 25075g upon arrival were individually housed in a climatecontrolled colony room on a 2hr light2hr dark cycle (lights on at 0800 hr). All testing occurred throughout the light phase in the cycle. Meals and water were readily available ad libitum (i.e rats weren’t meals restricted at any time). Rats were given 1 week to acclimate for the colony area ahead of testing began, during which time the experimenter handled them many instances. All procedures were authorized by the University of Michigan Committee on the Use and Care of Animals. Pavlovian education working with food because the US ApparatusBehavioral testing was performed in sixteen normal (22 eight 3 cm) test chambers (Med Associates Inc St. Albans, VT, USA) located in sound attenuating cabinets equipped with a ventilating fan to mask background noise. Every single chamber was equipped with an illuminated retractable.
