Maddux JM, Chatterjee S, Kerfoot EC, Holland PC (2005) Distinct roles for amygdala central nucleus, medial prefrontal cortex, and posterior parietal cortex in attention for learning and action. Neuroscience 2005 Abstracts 411.16. Society for Neuroscience, Washington, DC.
Summary: Many theories of associative learning claim that the accuracy with which an event predicts its consequences affects the allocation of attention to that event. More reliable predictors are more likely to control action, but less reliable predictors often are more likely to capture attention for purposes of new learning about those events. Previous studies from our lab showed the amygdala central nucleus (ACe) to be important for both sustained attention guiding performance to predictive cues, and for enhanced new learning about less predictive cues. This study investigated the possibility that ACe affects these distinct aspects of attention by influencing different, specialized cortical regions, via its modulation of the basal forebrain cholinergic system. Rats were given either ibotenic acid lesions of ACe, 192 IgG-saporin lesions that reduced the basal forebrain cholinergic input to medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) or posterior parietal cortex (PPC), or sham lesions of one of these regions. In an operant 5-choice reaction time task, responding to “CRF” ports was reinforced on 100% of the trials, whereas responding to “PRF” ports was reinforced on only 50% of such trials. Later, the ability of one CRF port and one PRF port to overshadow Pavlovian conditioning of auditory cues when port + tone compounds were paired with the delivery of a new, more valued reinforcer was examined. ACe lesions interfered with attention to the PRF cue for both learning and action, whereas reduction of cholinergic input to mPFC interfered only with attention for action, and reduction of cholinergic input to PPC interfered only with attention for new learning. The PRF port overshadowed conditioning of the tone significantly more than did the CRF port in both sham and mPFC rats, but not in ACe or PPC rats. By contrast, relative to CRF port responding, control of port-directed responding by the PRF cue was significantly greater in sham and PPC rats than in ACe or mPFC rats.
Related Products: 192-IgG-SAP (Cat. #IT-01)