Comparison of conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants in a rodent probabilistic reversal learning task.

Brain and neuroscience advances Pub Date : 2020-02-23 eCollection Date: 2020-01-01 DOI:10.1177/2398212820907177
Matthew P Wilkinson, John P Grogan, Jack R Mellor, Emma S J Robinson
{"title":"Comparison of conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants in a rodent probabilistic reversal learning task.","authors":"Matthew P Wilkinson, John P Grogan, Jack R Mellor, Emma S J Robinson","doi":"10.1177/2398212820907177","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Deficits in reward processing are a central feature of major depressive disorder with patients exhibiting decreased reward learning and altered feedback sensitivity in probabilistic reversal learning tasks. Methods to quantify probabilistic learning in both rodents and humans have been developed, providing translational paradigms for depression research. We have utilised a probabilistic reversal learning task to investigate potential differences between conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants on reward learning and feedback sensitivity. We trained 12 rats in a touchscreen probabilistic reversal learning task before investigating the effect of acute administration of citalopram, venlafaxine, reboxetine, ketamine or scopolamine. Data were also analysed using a Q-learning reinforcement learning model to understand the effects of antidepressant treatment on underlying reward processing parameters. Citalopram administration decreased trials taken to learn the first rule and increased win-stay probability. Reboxetine decreased win-stay behaviour while also decreasing the number of rule changes animals performed in a session. Venlafaxine had no effect. Ketamine and scopolamine both decreased win-stay probability, number of rule changes performed and motivation in the task. Insights from the reinforcement learning model suggested that reboxetine led animals to choose a less optimal strategy, while ketamine decreased the model-free learning rate. These results suggest that reward learning and feedback sensitivity are not differentially modulated by conventional and rapid-acting antidepressant treatment in the probabilistic reversal learning task.</p>","PeriodicalId":72444,"journal":{"name":"Brain and neuroscience advances","volume":"4 ","pages":"2398212820907177"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-02-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7085917/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Brain and neuroscience advances","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/2398212820907177","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2020/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Deficits in reward processing are a central feature of major depressive disorder with patients exhibiting decreased reward learning and altered feedback sensitivity in probabilistic reversal learning tasks. Methods to quantify probabilistic learning in both rodents and humans have been developed, providing translational paradigms for depression research. We have utilised a probabilistic reversal learning task to investigate potential differences between conventional and rapid-acting antidepressants on reward learning and feedback sensitivity. We trained 12 rats in a touchscreen probabilistic reversal learning task before investigating the effect of acute administration of citalopram, venlafaxine, reboxetine, ketamine or scopolamine. Data were also analysed using a Q-learning reinforcement learning model to understand the effects of antidepressant treatment on underlying reward processing parameters. Citalopram administration decreased trials taken to learn the first rule and increased win-stay probability. Reboxetine decreased win-stay behaviour while also decreasing the number of rule changes animals performed in a session. Venlafaxine had no effect. Ketamine and scopolamine both decreased win-stay probability, number of rule changes performed and motivation in the task. Insights from the reinforcement learning model suggested that reboxetine led animals to choose a less optimal strategy, while ketamine decreased the model-free learning rate. These results suggest that reward learning and feedback sensitivity are not differentially modulated by conventional and rapid-acting antidepressant treatment in the probabilistic reversal learning task.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
常规和速效抗抑郁药在啮齿动物概率逆转学习任务中的比较。
奖励处理缺陷是重度抑郁症的核心特征,患者在概率反转学习任务中表现出奖励学习减少和反馈敏感性改变。量化啮齿动物和人类概率学习的方法已经开发出来,为抑郁症研究提供了转化范例。我们利用概率逆转学习任务来调查传统和速效抗抑郁药在奖励学习和反馈敏感性方面的潜在差异。在研究西酞普兰、文拉法辛、瑞波西汀、氯胺酮或东莨菪碱急性给药的效果之前,我们用触屏概率反转学习任务训练了12只大鼠。数据还使用Q-learning强化学习模型进行分析,以了解抗抑郁药物治疗对潜在奖励处理参数的影响。西酞普兰减少了学习第一规则的试验次数,增加了获胜的可能性。Reboxetine减少了win-stay行为,同时也减少了动物在一次会议中改变规则的次数。文拉法辛没有效果。氯胺酮和东莨菪碱都降低了获胜概率、执行规则更改的次数和任务中的动机。强化学习模型表明,瑞波西汀导致动物选择不太理想的策略,而氯胺酮降低了无模型学习率。这些结果表明,在概率逆转学习任务中,常规抗抑郁药和速效抗抑郁药对奖励学习和反馈敏感性的调节没有差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
8 weeks
期刊最新文献
Review of the gastric physiology of disgust: Proto-nausea as an under-explored facet of the gut-brain axis. From neurophobia to neurophilia: Fostering confidence and passion for neurology in medical students. Are all neuroscience degrees the same? A comparison of undergraduate neuroscience degrees across the United Kingdom. Centralising a loss of consciousness to the central medial thalamus. Genetically modified animals as models of neurodevelopmental conditions: A review of systematic review reporting quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1