Skip to main content
Log in

The role of ‘jackpot’ stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists

  • Original Investigation
  • Published:
Psychopharmacology Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Rationale

Laboratory experiments often model risk through a choice between a large, uncertain (LU) reward against a small, certain (SC) reward as an index of an individual’s risk tolerance. An important factor generally lacking from these procedures are reward-associated cues that may modulate risk preferences.

Objective

We tested whether the addition of cues signaling ‘jackpot’ wins to LU choices would modulate risk preferences and if these cue effects were mediated by dopaminergic signaling.

Methods

Three groups of rats chose between LU and SC rewards for which the LU probability of reward decreased across blocks. The unsignaled group received a non-informative stimulus of trial outcome. The signaled group received a jackpot signal prior to reward delivery and blackout on losses. The signaled-light group received a similar jackpot for wins, but a salient loss signal distinct from the win signal.

Results

Presenting win signals decreased the discounting of LU value for both signaled groups regardless of loss signal, while the unsignaled group showed discounting similar to previous research without cues. Pharmacological challenges with D1/D2 agonists and antagonists revealed that D1 antagonism increased and decreased sensitives to the relative probability of reward for unsignaled and signaled groups, respectively, while D2 agonists decreased sensitivities to the relative magnitude of reward.

Conclusion

The results highlight how signals predictive of wins can promote maladaptive risk taking in individuals, while loss signals have reduced effect. Additionally, the presence of reward-predictive cues may change the underlying neurobehavioral mechanisms mediating decision-making under risk.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Anselme P (2015) Incentive salience attribution under reward uncertainty: a Pavlovian model. Behav Process 111:6–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anselme P, Robinson MJF, Berridge KC (2013) Reward uncertainty enhances incentive salience attribution as sign-tracking. Behav Brain Res 238:53–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2012.10.006

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Barrus MM, Winstanley CA (2016) Dopamine D3 receptors modulate the ability of win-paired cues to increase risky choice in a rat gambling task. J Neurosci 36:785–794

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Barrus MM, Cherkasova M, Winstanley CA (2015) Skewed by cues? The motivational role of audiovisual stimuli in modelling substance use and gambling disorders. In: Behavioral neuroscience of motivation. Springer, pp 507–529

  • Beckmann JS, Chow JJ (2015) Isolating the incentive salience of reward-associated stimuli: value, choice, and persistence. Learn Mem 22:116–127

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cardinal RN, Howes NJ (2005) Effects of lesions of the nucleus accumbens core on choice between small certain rewards and large uncertain rewards in rats. BMC Neurosci 6:37

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow JJ, Smith AP, Wilson AG, Zentall TR, Beckmann JS (2017) Suboptimal choice in rats: incentive salience attribution promotes maladaptive decision-making. Behav Brain Res 320:244–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bbr.2016.12.013

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Clark CA, Dagher A (2014) The role of dopamine in risk taking: a specific look at Parkinson’s disease and gambling. Front Behav Neurosci 8:196. https://doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00196

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Cooper S, Al-Naser H (2006) Dopaminergic control of food choice: contrasting effects of SKF 38393 and quinpirole on high-palatability food preference in the rat. Neuropharmacology 50:953–963

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fiorillo CD, Tobler PN, Schultz W (2003) Discrete coding of reward probability and uncertainty by dopamine neurons. Science 299:1898–1902. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1077349

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Flagel SB et al (2011) A selective role for dopamine in reward learning. Nature 469:53–57. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09588

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fortes I, Vasconcelos M, Machado A (2016) Testing the boundaries of “paradoxical” predictions: pigeons do disregard bad news. J Exp Psychol Anim learn cogn 42(4):336–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Glimcher PW (2011) Understanding dopamine and reinforcement learning: the dopamine reward prediction error hypothesis. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S Am 108:15647–15654

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Herrnstein RJ (1990) Rational choice theory: necessary but not sufficient. Am Psychol 45:356–367. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.45.3.356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hochberg Y (1988) A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance. Biometrika 75:800–802

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holt DD, Green L, Myerson J (2003) Is discounting impulsive?: Evidence from temporal and probability discounting in gambling and non-gambling college students. Behav Process 64:355–367

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hothorn T, Bretz F, Westfall P (2008) Simultaneous inference in general parametric models. Biom J 50:346–363

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D (2003) A perspective on judgment and choice: mapping bounded rationality. Am Psychol 58:697

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kahneman D, Tversky A (1979) Prospect theory: an analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47:263–291. https://doi.org/10.2307/1914185

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koffarnus MN, Newman AH, Grundt P, Rice KC, Woods JH (2011) Effects of selective dopaminergic compounds on a delay discounting task. Behav Pharmacol 22:300

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Laude JR, Stagner JP, Zentall TR (2014) Suboptimal choice by pigeons may result from the diminishing effect of nonreinforcement. J Exp Psychol: Anim Learn Cogn 40:12–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Levant B, De Souza EB (1993) Differential pharmacological profile of striatal and cerebellar dopamine receptors labeled by [3H] quinpirole: identification of a discrete population of putative D3 receptors. Synapse 14:90–95

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Lin X, Zhou H, Dong G, Du X (2015) Impaired risk evaluation in people with Internet gaming disorder: fMRI evidence from a probability discounting task. Prog Neuro-Psychopharmacol Biol Psychiatry 56:142–148. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pnpbp.2014.08.016

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Madden GJ, Petry NM, Johnson PS (2009) Pathological gamblers discount probabilistic rewards less steeply than matched controls. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 17:283

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marshall AT, Kirkpatrick K (2017) Reinforcement learning models of risky choice and the promotion of risk-taking by losses disguised as wins in rats. J Exp Psychol: Anim Learn Cogn 43:262

    Google Scholar 

  • Martínez M, Alba R, Rodríguez W, Orduña V (2017) Incentive salience attribution is not the sole determinant of suboptimal choice in rats: conditioned inhibition matters. Behavioural Processes 142:99–105

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDevitt MA, Dunn RM, Spetch ML, Ludvig EA (2016) When good news leads to bad choices. J Exp Anal Behav 105:23–40. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.192

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Molet M, Miller H, Laude J, Kirk C, Manning B, Zentall T (2012) Decision making by humans in a behavioral task: do humans, like pigeons, show suboptimal choice? Learn Behav 40:439–447. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13420-012-0065-7

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Onge JRS, Ahn S, Phillips AG, Floresco SB (2012) Dynamic fluctuations in dopamine efflux in the prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens during risk-based decision making. J Neurosci 32:16880–16891

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orsini CA, Moorman DE, Young JW, Setlow B, Floresco SB (2015) Neural mechanisms regulating different forms of risk-related decision-making: insights from animal models. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 58:147–167. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.04.009

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petry NM (2012) Discounting of probabilistic rewards is associated with gambling abstinence in treatment-seeking pathological gamblers. J Abnorm Psychol 121:151–159. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0024782

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Picker M, Poling A (1982) Choice as a dependent measure in autoshaping: sensitivity to frequency and duration of food presentation. J Exp Anal Behav 37:393–406. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1982.37-393

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro J, Bates D, DebRoy S, Team RC (2016) nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models R package version 31-128

  • Pisklak JM, McDevitt MA, Dunn RM, Spetch ML (2015) When good pigeons make bad decisions: choice with probabilistic delays and outcomes. J Exp Anal Behav 104:241–251. https://doi.org/10.1002/jeab.177

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Rachlin H, Raineri A, Cross D (1991) Subjective probability and delay. J Exp Anal Behav 55:233–244. https://doi.org/10.1901/jeab.1991.55-233

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen EB, Lawyer SR, Reilly W (2010) Percent body fat is related to delay and probability discounting for food in humans. Behav Processes 83:23–30. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2009.09.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Reynolds B, Richards JB, Horn K, Karraker K (2004) Delay discounting and probability discounting as related to cigarette smoking status in adults. Behav Processes 65:35–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robinson TE, Berridge KC (2008) Review. The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci 363:3137–3146. https://doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0093

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Schultz W (2010) Dopamine signals for reward value and risk: basic and recent data. Behav Brain Funct 6:24

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith AP, Zentall TR (2016) Suboptimal choice in pigeons: choice is primarily based on the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than overall reinforcement rate. J Exp Psychol: Anim Learn Cogn 42:212–220. https://doi.org/10.1037/xan0000092

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith AP, Bailey AR, Chow JJ, Beckmann JS, Zentall TR (2016) Suboptimal choice in pigeons: stimulus value predicts choice over frequencies. PloS One 11(7):e0159336

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith AP, Beckmann JS, Zentall TR (2017) Gambling-like behavior in pigeons: ‘jackpot’ signals promote maladaptive risky choice Sci Rep

  • St Onge JR, Floresco SB (2009) Dopaminergic modulation of risk-based decision making. Neuropsychopharmacology 34:681–697 http://www.nature.com/npp/journal/v34/n3/suppinfo/npp2008121s1.html

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens DW, Krebs JR (1986) Foraging theory. Princeton University Press

  • Stopper CM, Khayambashi S, Floresco SB (2013) Receptor-specific modulation of risk-based decision making by nucleus accumbens dopamine. Neuropsychopharmacology 38:715–728

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Sugam JA, Day JJ, Wightman RM, Carelli RM (2012) Phasic nucleus accumbens dopamine encodes risk-based decision-making behavior. Biol Psychiatry 71:199–205

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Trujano RE, Orduna V (2015) Rats are optimal in a choice task in which pigeons are not. Behav Processes 119:22–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trujano RE, López P, Rojas-Leguizamón M, Orduña V (2016) Optimal behavior by rats in a choice task is associated to a persistent conditioned inhibition effect. Behav Processes 130:65–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van Holst RJ, van den Brink W, Veltman DJ, Goudriaan AE (2010) Why gamblers fail to win: a review of cognitive and neuroimaging findings in pathological gambling. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 34:87–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vasconcelos M, Monteiro T, Kacelnik A (2015) Irrational choice and the value of information. Sci Rep 5:13874. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep13874

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Wagenmakers E-J, Farrell S (2004) AIC model selection using Akaike weights. Psychon Bull Rev 11:192–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yates JR, Breitenstein KA, Gunkel BT, Hughes MN, Johnson AB, Rogers KK, Shape SM (2016) Effects of NMDA receptor antagonists on probability discounting depend on the order of probability presentation. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 150–151:31–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pbb.2016.09.004

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME (2017) Discounting: a practical guide to multilevel analysis of indifference data. J Exp Anal Behav 108(1):97–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young ME, Clark M, Goffus A, Hoane MR (2009) Mixed effects modeling of Morris water maze data: advantages and cautionary notes. Learn Motiv 40:160–177

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zentall TR (2016) Resolving the paradox of suboptimal choice. J Exp Psychol: Anim Learn Cogn 42:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Zentall TR, Laude JR, Stagner JP, Smith AP (2015) Suboptimal choice by pigeons: evidence that the value of the conditioned reinforcer rather than its frequency determines choice. Psychol Rec 65:223–229

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Josh Lavy for his technical assistance.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Institute of Drug Abuse, DA033373 and DA016176.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Joshua S. Beckmann.

Electronic supplementary material

ESM 1

(DOCX 356 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Smith, A.P., Hofford, R.S., Zentall, T.R. et al. The role of ‘jackpot’ stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists. Psychopharmacology 235, 1427–1437 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-4851-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00213-018-4851-6

Keywords

Navigation