Background: Pavlovian processes are thought to play an important role in the development, maintenance and relapse of alcohol dependence, possibly by influencing and usurping ongoing thought and behavior. The influence of pavlovian stimuli on ongoing behavior is paradigmatically measured by pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) tasks. These involve multiple stages and are complex. Whether increased PIT is involved in human alcohol dependence is uncertain. We therefore aimed to establish and validate a modified PIT paradigm that would be robust, consistent and tolerated by healthy controls as well as by patients suffering from alcohol dependence, and to explore whether alcohol dependence is associated with enhanced PIT. Methods: Thirty-two recently detoxified alcohol-dependent patients and 32 age- and gender-matched healthy controls performed a PIT task with instrumental go/no-go approach behaviors. The task involved both pavlovian stimuli associated with monetary rewards and losses, and images of drinks. Results: Both patients and healthy controls showed a robust and temporally stable PIT effect. Strengths of PIT effects to drug-related and monetary conditioned stimuli were highly correlated. Patients more frequently showed a PIT effect, and the effect was stronger in response to aversively conditioned CSs (conditioned suppression), but there was no group difference in response to appetitive CSs. Conclusion: The implementation of PIT has favorably robust properties in chronic alcohol-dependent patients and in healthy controls. It shows internal consistency between monetary and drug-related cues. The findings support an association of alcohol dependence with an increased propensity towards PIT. 2014 S. Karger AG, Basel

1.
Bottlender M, Spanagel R, Soyka M: One drink, one drunk - controlled drinking by alcoholics? 3-year-outcome after intensive outpatient treatment (in German). Psychother Psychosom Med Psychol 2007;57:32-38.
2.
Boothby LA, Doering PL: Acamprosate for the treatment of alcohol dependence. Clin Ther 2005;27:695-714.
3.
Jones BT, McMahon J: Negative alcohol expectancy predicts post-treatment abstinence survivorship: the whether, when and why of relapse to a first drink. Addiction 1994;89:1653-1665.
4.
Jones BT, Corbin W, Fromme K: A review of expectancy theory and alcohol consumption. Addiction 2001;96:57-72.
5.
Robins LN, Davis DH, Nurco DN: How permanent was Vietnam drug addiction? Am J Public Health 1974;64(suppl 12):38-43.
6.
Everitt BJ, Robbins TW: Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat Neurosci 2005;8:1481-1489.
7.
Robbins TW, Everitt BJ: Drug addiction: bad habits add up. Nature 1999;398:567-570.
8.
Di Chiara G: Drug addiction as dopamine-dependent associative learning disorder. Eur J Pharmacol 1999;375:13-30.
9.
Kiefer F, Dinter C: New approaches to addiction treatment based on learning and memory. Curr Top Behav Neurosci 2013;13:671-684.
10.
Tiffany ST, Carter BL: Is craving the source of compulsive drug use? J Psychopharmacol 1998;12:23-30.
11.
Daw ND, Niv Y, Dayan P: Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nat Neurosci 2005;8:1704-1711.
12.
Sutton RS, Barto AG: Reinforcement Learning: An Introduction. Cambridge, MIT Press, 1998.
13.
Robinson TE, Berridge KC: The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues. Philos Trans R Soc Lond Ser B Biol Sci 2008;363:3137-3146.
14.
Dolan RJ, Dayan P: Goals and habits in the brain. Neuron 2013;80:312-325.
15.
Schultz W, Dayan P, Montague PR: A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 1997;275:1593-1599.
16.
Montague PR, Dayan P, Sejnowski TJ: A framework for mesencephalic dopamine systems based on predictive hebbian learning. J Neurosci 1996;16:1936-1947.
17.
Steinberg EE, Keiflin R, Boivin JR, Witten IB, Deisseroth K, Janak PH: A causal link between prediction errors, dopamine neurons and learning. Nat Neurosci 2013;16:966-973.
18.
Lesaint F, Sigaud O, Flagel SB, Robinson TE, Khamassi M: Modelling individual differences in the form of pavlovian conditioned approach responses: a dual learning systems approach with factored representations. PLoS Comput Biol 2014;10:e1003466.
19.
Huys QJM, Tobler PT, Hasler G, Flagel SB: The role of learning-related dopamine signals in addiction vulnerability. Prog Brain Res 2014;211:31-77.
20.
Flagel SB, Akil H, Robinson TE: Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues: implications for addiction. Neuropharmacology 2009;56 (suppl 1):139-148.
21.
Flagel SB, Robinson TE, Clark JJ, Clinton SM, Watson SJ, Seeman P, Phillips PE, Akil H: An animal model of genetic vulnerability to behavioral disinhibition and responsiveness to reward-related cues: implications for addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35:388-400.
22.
Holmes NM, Marchand AR, Coutureau E: Pavlovian to instrumental transfer: a neurobehavioural perspective. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2010;34:1277-1295.
23.
Corbit LH, Balleine BW: Double dissociation of basolateral and central amygdala lesions on the general and outcome-specific forms of pavlovian-instrumental transfer. J Neurosci 2005;25:962-970.
24.
Cartoni E, Puglisi-Allegra S, Baldassarre G: The three principles of action: a pavlovian-instrumental transfer hypothesis. Front Behav Neurosci 2013;7:153.
25.
Cardinal RN, Parkinson JA, Hall J, Everitt BJ: Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2002;26:321-352.
26.
Lex A, Hauber W: Dopamine D1 and D2 receptors in the nucleus accumbens core and shell mediate pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Learn Mem 2008;15:483-491.
27.
Dickinson A, Smith J, Mirenowicz J: Dissociation of pavlovian and instrumental incentive learning under dopamine antagonists. Behav Neurosci 2000;114:468-483.
28.
Wassum KM, Ostlund SB, Balleine BW, Maidment NT: Differential dependence of pavlovian incentive motivation and instrumental incentive learning processes on dopamine signaling. Learn Mem 2011;18:475-483.
29.
LeBlanc KH, Ostlund SB, Maidment NT: Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer in cocaine seeking rats. Behav Neurosci 2012;126:681-689.
30.
LeBlanc KH, Maidment NT, Ostlund SB: Repeated cocaine exposure facilitates the expression of incentive motivation and induces habitual control in rats. PloS One 2013;8:e61355.
31.
Shiflett MW, Riccie M, Dimatteo R: The effects of amphetamine sensitization on conditioned inhibition during a pavlovian-instrumental transfer task in rats. Psychopharmacology 2013;230:137-147.
32.
Corbit LH, Janak PH: Ethanol-associated cues produce general pavlovian-instrumental transfer. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 2007;31:766-774.
33.
Saddoris MP, Stamatakis A, Carelli RM: Neural correlates of pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer in the nucleus accumbens shell are selectively potentiated following cocaine self-administration. Eur J Neurosci 2011;33:2274-2287.
34.
Trick L, Hogarth L, Duka T: Prediction and uncertainty in human pavlovian to instrumental transfer. J Exp Psychol Learn Mem Cogn 2011;37:757-765.
35.
Talmi D, Seymour B, Dayan P, Dolan RJ: Human pavlovian-instrumental transfer. J Neurosci 2008;28:360-368.
36.
Huys QJ, Cools R, Golzer M, Friedel E, Heinz A, Dolan RJ, Dayan P: Disentangling the roles of approach, activation and valence in instrumental and pavlovian responding. PLoS Comput Biol 2011;7:e1002028.
37.
Nadler N, Delgado MR, Delamater AR: Pavlovian to instrumental transfer of control in a human learning task. Emotion 2011;11:1112-1123.
38.
Bray S, Rangel A, Shimojo S, Balleine B, O'Doherty JP: The neural mechanisms underlying the influence of pavlovian cues on human decision making. J Neurosci 2008;28:5861-5866.
39.
Geurts DE, Huys QJ, den Ouden HE, Cools R: Aversive pavlovian control of instrumental behavior in humans. J Cogn Neurosci 2013;25:1428-1441.
40.
Prevost C, Liljeholm M, Tyszka JM, O'Doherty JP: Neural correlates of specific and general pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer within human amygdalar subregions: a high-resolution fMRI study. J Neurosci 2012;32:8383-8390.
41.
Sullivan JT, Sykora K, Schneiderman J, Naranjo CA, Sellers EM: Assessment of alcohol withdrawal: the revised Clinical Institute Withdrawal Assessment for Alcohol scale (CIWA-AR). Br J Addict 1989;84:1353-1357.
42.
Wittchen H-U: Computer scoring of CIDI diagnoses. Int J Methods Psychiatr Res 1993;3:101-107.
43.
Brainard DH: The psychophysics toolbox. Spatial Vision 1997;10:433-436.
44.
Pelli DG: The videotoolbox software for visual psychophysics: transforming numbers into movies. Spatial Vision 1997;10:437-442.
45.
Peli E: Contrast in complex images. J Opt Soc Am A Opt Image Sci 1990;7:2032-2040.
46.
MATLAB version 7.12.0. Natick, MathWorks Inc, 2011.
47.
IBM Corp: IBM SPSS statistics for Windows, version 20.0. Armonk, IBM Corp, 2011.
48.
Robinson TE, Berridge KC: Addiction. Annu Rev Psychol 2003;54:25-53.
49.
Volkow ND, Fowler JS, Wang GJ, Baler R, Telang F: Imaging dopamine's role in drug abuse and addiction. Neuropharmacology 2009;56(suppl 1):3-8.
50.
Robbins TW, Gillan CM, Smith DG, de Wit S, Ersche KD: Neurocognitive endophenotypes of impulsivity and compulsivity: towards dimensional psychiatry. Trends Cogn Sci 2012;16:81-91.
51.
Redish AD, Jensen S, Johnson A: A unified framework for addiction: vulnerabilities in the decision process. Behav Brain Sci 2008;31:415-487.
52.
Hogarth L, Field M, Rose AK: Phasic transition from goal-directed to habitual control over drug-seeking produced by conflicting reinforcer expectancy. Addict Biol 2013;18:88-97.
53.
Hogarth L, Balleine BW, Corbit LH, Killcross S: Associative learning mechanisms underpinning the transition from recreational drug use to addiction. Ann NY Acad Sci 2013;1282:12-24.
54.
Takahashi YK, Roesch MR, Wilson RC, Toreson K, O'Donnell P, Niv Y, Schoenbaum G: Expectancy-related changes in firing of dopamine neurons depend on orbitofrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 2011;14:1590-1597.
55.
Schoenbaum G, Roesch MR, Stalnaker TA, Takahashi YK: A new perspective on the role of the orbitofrontal cortex in adaptive behaviour. Nat Rev Neurosci 2009;10:885-892.
56.
Lucantonio F, Stalnaker TA, Shaham Y, Niv Y, Schoenbaum G: The impact of orbitofrontal dysfunction on cocaine addiction. Nat Neurosci 2012;15:358-366.
57.
Flagel SB, Clark JJ, Robinson TE, Mayo L, Czuj A, Willuhn I, Akers CA, Clinton SM, Phillips PE, Akil H: A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning. Nature 2011;469:53-57.
58.
McDannald MA, Lucantonio F, Burke KA, Niv Y, Schoenbaum G: Ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex are both required for model-based, but not model-free, reinforcement learning. J Neurosci 2011;31:2700-2705.
59.
Heinz AJ, Beck A, Meyer-Lindenberg A, Sterzer P, Heinz A: Cognitive and neurobiological mechanisms of alcohol-related aggression. Nat Rev Neurosci 2011;12:400-413.
60.
Knowlton BJ, Mangels JA, Squire LR: A neostriatal habit learning system in humans. Science 1996;273:1399-1402.
61.
Lovibond PF, Shanks DR: The role of awareness in pavlovian conditioning: empirical evidence and theoretical implications. J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Processes 2002;28:3-26.
62.
Seo D, Jia Z, Lacadie CM, Tsou KA, Bergquist K, Sinha R: Sex differences in neural responses to stress and alcohol context cues. Hum Brain Mapp 2011;32:1998-2013.
63.
Rehm J, Room R, van den Brink W, Jacobi F: Alcohol use disorders in EU countries and Norway: an overview of the epidemiology. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 2005;15:377-388.
64.
Hasin DS, Stinson FS, Ogburn E, Grant BF: Prevalence, correlates, disability, and comorbidity of DSM-IV alcohol abuse and dependence in the United States: results from the national epidemiologic survey on alcohol and related conditions. Arch Gen Psychiatry 2007;64:830-842.
Copyright / Drug Dosage / Disclaimer
Copyright: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be translated into other languages, reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording, microcopying, or by any information storage and retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publisher.
Drug Dosage: The authors and the publisher have exerted every effort to ensure that drug selection and dosage set forth in this text are in accord with current recommendations and practice at the time of publication. However, in view of ongoing research, changes in government regulations, and the constant flow of information relating to drug therapy and drug reactions, the reader is urged to check the package insert for each drug for any changes in indications and dosage and for added warnings and precautions. This is particularly important when the recommended agent is a new and/or infrequently employed drug.
Disclaimer: The statements, opinions and data contained in this publication are solely those of the individual authors and contributors and not of the publishers and the editor(s). The appearance of advertisements or/and product references in the publication is not a warranty, endorsement, or approval of the products or services advertised or of their effectiveness, quality or safety. The publisher and the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to persons or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content or advertisements.
You do not currently have access to this content.