Pavlovian influences on learning differ between rats and mice in a counter-balanced Go/NoGo judgement bias task.
Pavlovian influences on learning differ between rats and mice in a counter-balanced Go/NoGo judgement bias task.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1016/j.bbr.2017.05.044
复制
发表时间：
2017-07-28
影响因子：
2.7
通讯作者：
Mendl M
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Jones S;Paul ES;Dayan P;Robinson ESJ;Mendl M
我们为啮齿动物开发了一个自动平衡的Go/NoGo判断偏差任务。大鼠学会了“为奖励而去”/“不为避免惩罚而去”，而不是相反的偶然性。老鼠的行为恰恰相反；物种在巴甫洛夫决策控制方面可能有所不同。觅食、躲避捕食者和基线活动可能影响巴甫洛夫控制。两个物种在歧义测试中都表现出预测的反应泛化。动物情感和福利的判断偏差测试假设动物对可能预示积极或消极结果的模糊刺激的反应是在工具控制下的，反映了对将要发生的事情的“乐观”或“悲观”。然而，巴甫洛夫控制倾向于根据与刺激相关的效价而不是预期的反应结果来做出反应（例如接近或退出）。通常，积极的环境促进行动和方法，而消极的环境促进抑制或退缩。“求奖励”（Go-pos）和“求避免惩罚”（nogo - negg）判断偏差任务的盛行反映了这种巴甫洛夫效应。巴甫洛夫活动或活力的增加或减少也被认为伴随着积极或消极的情感状态，这可能会干扰基于预期决策结果的模糊性下的工具性Go或NoGo决策。解决这些问题的一种方法是制定平衡的Go-pos/ nogo - negative和go - negative /NoGo-pos任务。在这里，我们在Sprague Dawley大鼠和C57BL/6J小鼠中使用食物和空气作为决策结果来执行这些任务。我们发现惊人的物种/品系差异，大鼠在Go-pos/ nogo - negative任务中达到标准表现，但未能学习go - negative /NoGo-pos任务，与预测一致，而小鼠则恰恰相反。因此，巴甫洛夫倾向可能在物种之间有所不同，例如反映觅食和捕食生态和/或基线活动率。学习失败仅限于预测负面结果的线索；因此，使用更强大的空气刺激可以实现完全平衡的任务。大鼠和小鼠比在类似的自动化任务中更快地达到标准，并且对歧义音调的反应也显示出预期的泛化。因此，一个完全平衡的任务提供了一个潜在的快速实施和自动化的方法来评估动物福利，确定福利问题和福利改善和3Rs改进的领域，并评估改进的有效性。
We develop an automated counter-balanced Go/NoGo judgement bias task for rodents. Rats learn Go-for-reward/NoGo-to-avoid-punishment but not the reverse contingency. Mice do exactly the opposite; species may differ in Pavlovian control of decisions. Foraging, predator avoidance, and baseline activity may influence Pavlovian control. Both species show the predicted generalisation of responses in ambiguity tests. Judgement bias tests of animal affect and hence welfare assume that the animal’s responses to ambiguous stimuli, which may herald positive or negative outcomes, are under instrumental control and reflect ‘optimism’ or ‘pessimism’ about what will happen. However, Pavlovian control favours responses (e.g. approach or withdrawal) according to the valence associated with a stimulus, rather than the anticipated response outcomes. Typically, positive contexts promote action and approach whilst negative contexts promote inhibition or withdrawal. The prevalence of Go-for-reward (Go-pos) and NoGo-to-avoid-punishment (NoGo-neg) judgement bias tasks reflects this Pavlovian influence. A Pavlovian increase or decrease in activity or vigour has also been argued to accompany positive or negative affective states, and this may interfere with instrumental Go or NoGo decisions under ambiguity based on anticipated decision outcomes. One approach to these issues is to develop counter-balanced Go-pos/NoGo-neg and Go-neg/NoGo-pos tasks. Here we implement such tasks in Sprague Dawley rats and C57BL/6J mice using food and air-puff as decision outcomes. We find striking species/strain differences with rats achieving criterion performance on the Go-pos/NoGo-neg task but failing to learn the Go-neg/NoGo-pos task, in line with predictions, whilst mice do exactly the opposite. Pavlovian predispositions may thus differ between species, for example reflecting foraging and predation ecology and/or baseline activity rates. Learning failures are restricted to cues predicting a negative outcome; use of a more powerful air-puff stimulus may thus allow implementation of a fully counter-balanced task. Rats and mice achieve criterion faster than in comparable automated tasks and also show the expected generalisation of responses across ambiguous tones. A fully counter-balanced task thus offers a potentially rapidly implemented and automated method for assessing animal welfare, identifying welfare problems and areas for welfare improvement and 3Rs Refinement, and assessing the effectiveness of refinements.