PSYC 565 Psychology of Learning

B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

ava i l ab l e a t www.sc i enced i rec t . com

www.e l sev i e r. com/ loca te /b ra in res rev

Review

Behavioral characteristics and neurobiological substrates shared by Pavlovian sign-tracking and drug abuse

Arthur Tomiea,⁎, Kathryn L. Grimesa, Larissa A. Pohoreckyb

aDepartment of Psychology, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA bCenter of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers University, New Brunswick, NJ 08903, USA

A R T I C L E I N F O

⁎ Corresponding author. Fax: +1 732 445 2263. E-mail address: [email protected] (A. Abbreviations: CS, conditioned stimulus; U

phenylacetic acid; IST, Incentive Sensitizati NAC, nucleus accumbens; PFC, prefrontal c NMDA, N-methyl-D-aspartic acid; PPTg, pend

0165-0173/$ – see front matter © 2007 Elsevi doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.12.003

A B S T R A C T

Article history: Accepted 8 December 2007 Available online 28 December 2007

Drug abuse researchers have noted striking similarities between behaviors elicited by Pavlovian sign-tracking procedures and prominent symptoms of drug abuse. In Pavlovian sign-tracking procedures, repeated paired presentations of a small object (conditioned stimulus, CS) with a reward (unconditioned stimulus, US) elicits a conditioned response (CR) that typically consists of approaching the CS, contacting the CS, and expressing consummatory responses at the CS. Sign-tracking CR performance is poorly controlled and exhibits spontaneous recovery and long-term retention, effects that resemble relapse. Sign-tracking resembles psychomotor activation, a syndrome of behavioral responses evoked by addictive drugs, and the effects of sign-tracking on corticosterone levels and activation of dopamine pathways resemble the neurobiological effects of abused drugs. Finally, the neurobiological profile of individuals susceptible to sign-tracking resembles the pathophysiological profile of vulnerability to drug abuse, and vulnerability to sign-tracking predicts vulnerability to impulsive responding and alcohol self-administration. Implications of sign-tracking for models of drug addiction are considered.

© 2007 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Keywords: Sign-Tracking Pavlovian Autoshaping Drug abuse Addiction Salience

Contents

1. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2. Behavioral characteristics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

2.1. Relapse-like effects. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122 2.2. Vulnerability to impulsivity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123 2.3. Psychomotor sensitization. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 124 2.4. Sign-tracking induced by abused drugs. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

3. Neurobiological substrates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 3.1. Stress-related effects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125

3.1.1. Corticosterone . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 125 3.1.2. Monoamines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Tomie). S, unconditioned stimulus; ITI, intertrial interval; DA, dopamine; DOPAC, 3,4-dihydroxy-

on Theory; NE, norepinephrine; 5-HT, 5-hydroxytryptamine; VTA, ventral tegmental area; ortex; 8-OH-DPAT, 8-hydroxy-2-di-n-propylamino-tetralin; ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; unculopontine tegmental nucleus; 5-HIAA, 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid

er B.V. All rights reserved.

122 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

3.2. Dopamine pathways . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 3.2.1. Nucleus accumbens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 3.2.2. Anterior cingulate cortex. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 127 3.2.3. Pendunculopontine tegmental nucleus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

3.3. Vulnerability markers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 4. Sign-tracking as attribution of incentive salience. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128 References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

1. Introduction

Drug abuse researchers have noted striking similarities between behaviors elicited by Pavlovian sign-tracking (also called qautoshapingq) procedures and prominent symptoms of drug abuse (Tomie, 1995a, 1996; Newlin, 2002; Uslaner et al., 2006; Flagel et al., 2007, 2008). Moreover, key elements of sign-tracking procedures are likely experienced at the time that drugs are consumed. The traditional Pavlovian sign- tracking procedure consists of the presentation of a small object (conditioned stimulus, CS) that is followed by the response-independent presentation of reward (uncondi- tioned stimulus, US). Crucial to the understanding of sign- tracking, the US is delivered regardless of what the subject does. Repeated CS–US pairings lead to the acquisition of the Pavlovian sign-tracking CR, which is a complex sequence of motor responses directed at the CS (Brown and Jenkins, 1968; for review, see Tomie et al., 1989). Thus, if presenta- tion of a lever CS precedes the response-independent delivery of a food pellet US, rats approach and contact the lever CS, often grasping, licking, and gnawing the lever, as though it were food itself (Davey and Cleland, 1982; Tomie et al., 1989).

Sign-tracking has long been associated with seemingly maladaptive patterns of behavior that are elicited by and directed towards reward-related cues. Remarkably, these behaviors persist even though they serve only to delay or prevent the delivery of the reward, indicating that the sign- tracking CR performance is not under strict voluntary control. In their book, “The Misbehavior of Organisms”, Breland and Breland (1961) described howpairings of an object with reward lead to the development of bizarre and arguably compulsive responding. In a typical example, raccoons were trained to pick up wooden coins and deposit them through a slot into a metal box for a small morsel of crayfish, a highly prized food reward. Though initially things went well, with further training the raccoons began to experience problems. They were unable to let go of the coins, spending several minutes handling themwith their forepaws, and dipping the coins into the slot only to pull them out again. In the end, the coins were licked, chewed, scratched and washed, but rarely deposited. This was not the distraction of an animal that has lost interest in eating, because making the raccoon hungrier merely made matters worse. Similar qmisbehaviorq has been described in squirrel monkeys, pigs, chickens, turkeys, otters, porpoises, and whales (Breland and Breland, 1961, 1966). Numerous investigators have now provided rigorous experimental evi- dence that sign-tracking CR performance is difficult to control

or suppress (Williams andWilliams, 1969; Hearst and Jenkins, 1974; Atnip, 1977; Schwartz and Gamzu, 1977; Holland, 1979; Davey et al., 1981; Tomie, 1995b; Killeen, 2003; for review, see Locurto, 1981).

Both sign-tracking and drug abuse may be described as poorly controlled consummatory-like responding that is elicited by and directed at a small object CS that has been repeatedly paired with reward US. In humans, for example, the alcohol abuser exhibits poorly controlled drinking responses that are directed at the cocktail glass CS that has been repeatedly paired with alcohol US, or the cocaine abuser exhibits poorly controlled sniffing responses that are directed at the coke tooter CS that has been repeatedly paired with cocaine US. This section presents evidence of additional simi- larities in the characteristics of behaviors exhibited by drug abusers that are induced by experience with sign-tracking procedures.

2. Behavioral characteristics

2.1. Relapse-like effects

After sign-tracking CR performance has been acquired, the behavior is not easily forgotten or eliminated, but rather ap- pears to be quite durable and resilient. Evidence that sign- tracking CR performance is well retained is provided by re- ports that following its acquisition, the mere passing of time without additional training has little or no effect on the performance of sign-tracking CRs (Car and Murtazina, 1994; Meneses et al., 2004; Tomie et al., 2002c, 2004a). For example, sign-tracking CR performance of alcohol drinking in rats is virtually unchanged following a 27-day retention interval (Tomie et al., 2002c) or following a 41-day retention interval (Tomie et al., 2004a). Maintenance of sign-tracking CR performance of sipper CS-directed alcohol drinking over time, without appreciable decay or deterioration in the performance, is similar to relapse in humans and reinstate- ment of drug-taking in animals (Kruzich et al., 2001; Stewart, 2004; for review of reinstatement as a model of relapse, see Epstein et al., 2006; Fattore et al., 2007). In each of these cases there is little evidence of loss of responding during the retention interval, even though responding is not practiced during this extended period of time.

Further evidence of the resilience of sign-tracking CRs is provided by reports of spontaneous recovery and rapid reaquisition of sign-tracking CR performance. Spontaneous recovery is observed following a rest interval and after sign- tracking CR performance has been thoroughly eliminated by

123B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

extended experience with CS-only extinction procedures, during which the subject receives presentations of the CS but no US (Tomie et al., 1980, 1981; Robbins, 1990; Rescorla, 2004, 2005, 2006). Rapid reacquisition is observed following extensive training with response elimination procedures, when responding is rapidly reinstated by simply pairing the CS with the US (Tomie et al., 1980; Tomie and Kruse, 1980; Tomie et al., 1981). Relapse to drug-taking resembles sponta- neous recovery and rapid reacquisition of sign-tracking CR performance because even after drug-taking has been thor- oughly eliminated, mere exposure to the drug-paired cue or a brief lapse in abstinence, are sufficient to recover pre- elimination levels of drug-taking.

Drug abuse researchers have successfully employed Pavlovian CS-only extinction procedures to extinguish CRs indicative of reactivity to drug cues (for reviews see Tomie, 1995a, 1996). Nevertheless, there are many reports of spontaneous relapse of drug-taking, even though drug cue reactivity had previously been significantly reduced or eliminated by drug cue extinction procedures (Wikler, 1973; Monti et al., 2001; Junghanns et al., 2005; Loeber et al.., 2006), and Hammersley (1992) has attributed relapse to drug-taking following cue extinction therapy to spontaneous recovery. A role for spontaneous recovery of sign-tracking in relapse to drug-taking is suggested by reports that alcohol drinking glassware provides cues eliciting alcohol-related physiologi- cal responses (Carter and Tiffany, 1999) and subjective cravings for alcohol (Cooney et al., 1983; Fox, 2007), and the persistence of these cue-elicited responses contribute to relapse (Marlatt, 1990; Rohsenow et al., 1994; Sinha and Li, 2007).

Sign-tracking is a consummatory-like response directed at a small object CS paired with reward US, and because this resembles drug-taking, the analogies to relapse provided by long-term retention, spontaneous recovery, and rapid reac- quisition seem particularly pertinent. It is, nevertheless, ap- propriate to acknowledge that addiction theorists have long noted, and prior to the discovery of sign-tracking, that the remarkable durability and persistence of Pavlovian CRs was addiction-like (Wikler, 1967). It is not surprising, therefore that several recent prominent theoretical formulations of addic- tion and relapse have explicitly emphasized the role of Pavlovian processes in general (Stewart et al., 1984; Siegel, 1989; Robbins and Everitt, 1999; Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Corbit and Janak, 2007) and sign-tracking in particular (Tomie, 1995a, 1996; Newlin, 2002; Uslaner et al., 2006; Flagel et al., 2007, 2008; Cunningham and Patel, 2007).

2.2. Vulnerability to impulsivity

Impulsivity is typically measured using delay discounting procedures, and in observed when human beings (Bickel and Marsch, 2001) or animals (Charrier and Thiebot, 1996; Even- den and Ryan, 1996) choose smaller but immediate rewards over larger but delayed rewards. Impulsivity is related to drug addiction by studies reporting that rats that are into- lerant of reward delay subsequently acquire cocaine self- administration more rapidly and at lower doses (Perry et al., 2005) and also self-administer more alcohol (Poulos et al., 1995, 1998) than do delay-tolerant rats (for review, see Olm-

stead, 2006). In addition, Lewis rats, as compared to Fischer rats, exhibit more intolerance to reward delay (Anderson and Woolverton, 2005) and more readily self-administer drugs of abuse, including cocaine (Kosten et al., 1997; Haile and Kosten, 2001), morphine (Ambrosio et al., 1995; Martin et al., 1999), and alcohol (Suzuki et al., 1988). In humans, the trait of impulsivity has been proposed to predispose vulnerability to drug abuse (Zuckerman, 1993; Jentsch and Taylor, 1999; Svrakic et al., 1999; Volkow and Fowler, 2000; Kreek et al., 2005) and there is evidence that impulsivity, as measured by self-reports in humans, is higher in alcohol-dependent patients (Patton et al., 1995; Chen et al., 2007), and in drug abusers (Allen et al., 1998; Fillmore and Rush, 2002), while recent evidence implicates impulsivity is an important feature of early-onset alcoholism (Dom et al., 2006a,b).

Sign-tracking CR performance has been linked to impul- sivity, asmeasured by delay discounting, in the sameway that impulsive responding has been linked to alcohol drinking. The link between sign-tracking and impulsivity is based on the finding that individual differences in sign-tracking predict individual differences in impulsivity. Subject-to-subject varia- bility in sign-tracking CR performance can be extreme, with large and reliable between-subject differences in sign-tracking CR performance reported in a number of species, including ring doves (Balsam, 1985), pigeons (Tomie, 1981), and rats (Locurto, 1981; Tomie et al., 1998a,b, 2000; Flagel et al., 2007, 2008). Individual differences in sign-tracking CR performance were linked to individual differences in impulsivity, as mea- sured by the tendency to choose small immediate rewards rather than larger delayed rewards (Tomie et al., 1998a). In that study, rats that performed more lever-press sign-tracking CRs were more impulsive, as measured by intolerance of reward delay. A similar type of within-subjects correlation between sign-tracking and delay discounting has been reported in a study of the effects of lesions of the subthalamic nucleus, which decreased impulsive choice and impaired sign-tracking CR acquisition (Winstanley et al., 2005). Individual differences in impulsivity may also be substantial and predictive of between-subjects differences in alcohol drinking (Poulos et al., 1995, 1998). Poulos et al. have shown that rats, exhibiting intolerance to reward delay by choosing small immediate rewards over larger delayed rewards, subsequently consumed more alcohol than rats that were less delay-intolerant. Their work reveals that impulsivity and alcohol drinking are linked phenomena (Poulos et al., 1997), and provides support for the hypothesis that those individuals that performmore sign- tracking CRs tend to be more impulsive and drink more alcohol.

Rat strains that exhibit more impulsive responding as measured by intolerance to reward delay or delay discounting also perform more sign-tracking CRs. For example, Lewis rats exhibit more intolerance to reward delay than Fischer rats (Anderson and Woolverton, 2005), and Lewis rats also exhibit more rapid acquisition and higher asymptotic levels of sign- tracking CR performance than Fischer rats (Kearns et al., 2006). Intolerance to reward delay or delay discounting is one of several indices of impulsivity, and there is evidence that sign- tracking resembles impulsive responding on other behavioral tasks as well (Monterrosso and Ainslie, 1999). For example, depletions of forebrain serotonin in rats increased the number

124 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

of sign-tracking approach responses to a CS paired with food and also increased impulsive responding as measured by conditioned locomotor activity to food (Winstanley et al., 2004).

2.3. Psychomotor sensitization

Behavioral sensitization is defined as an increase in the locomotor-stimulating effect of a drug after repeated admin- istration (Robinson and Becker, 1986) and is proposed to be a determinant factor in addictive behavior in rats (Robinson, 1984; Salamone, 1992; Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Stewart, 2000, 2003, 2004) and in humans (Newlin and Thomson, 1991; Hunt and Lands, 1992). In rats, sensitization has been shown with cocaine, morphine, and alcohol, and cross-sensitization has been shown between alcohol and morphine (Nesby et al., 1997) and between abused drugs and stress (Sorg and Kalivas, 1991; Tidey and Miczek, 1997; Araujo et al., 2003). Repeated activation of the mesolimbic dopamine system may mediate the development of behavioral sensitization to psychomotor stimulants (Vezina and Stewart, 1990; Robinson and Berridge, 1993) and to alcohol (Nesby et al., 1997). Alcohol-induced behavioral sensitization has been shown in human beings (Zack and Vogel-Sprott, 1995), some strains of mice (Masur et al., 1986; Phillips et al., 1997) and in some strains of outbred rats (Hoshaw and Lewis, 2001; Correa et al., 2003); however, the conditions conducive to the induction or expression of beha- vioral sensitization of locomotor activation in rats remain unclear. Sensitization of psychomotor activation has been more reliably reported with drugs other than alcohol, includ- ing cocaine (Pecins-Thompson and Peris, 1993; Mattingly et al., 1994; Schenk and Partridge, 2000; Zavala et al., 2000; Erb et al., 2003; Haile et al., 2003; Matell et al., 2004), amphetamine (Robinson, 1984; Paulson and Robinson, 1991; Serwatkiewicz et al., 2000; Vezina and Queen, 2000; Crombag et al., 2001; Fukami et al., 2004), and opiates (Balcells-Olivero and Vezina, 1997; Ojanen et al., 2005).

Sign-tracking CR performance and sensitization of psycho- motor activation are similar in the topographical forms of the behaviors expressed. Sign-tracking CRs (Tomie et al., 1989) and the psychomotor activation syndrome (Wise and Bozarth, 1987; Piazza and Le Moal, 1996) are skeletal–motor responses, including actions of forward locomotion and directed approach, that include contact and manipulation responses, culminating in consummatory-like responses, including gnawing, licking, sniffing, chewing, and swallowing. Condi- tions conducive to sign-tracking of alcohol drinking and to alcohol-induced sensitization of psychomotor activation share a number of elements. For example, both are enhanced by exposures to alcohol that are repeated and spaced. In sign- tracking procedures, alcohol drinking is enhanced by Inter- mittent Sipper procedures and longer intertrial interval (ITI) durations (Tomie et al., 2003b, Exp. 2; Tomie et al., 2005a, 2006b). These are not unlike proceduresmost conducive to the induction of the psychomotor activating effects of alcohol, where repeated and spaced injections of alcohol (i.e., inter- mittent schedules of alcohol exposures), induce stronger psy- chomotor activating effects than in controls provided with massed exposures to alcohol (Pecins-Thompson and Peris, 1993; Lessov and Phillips, 1998; Quadros et al., 2003). Similarly,

other abused drugs induce psychomotor activation effects (Robinson, 1984; Wise and Bozarth, 1987; Wise and Rompre, 1989) that are exaggerated by repeated and spaced exposures to the drug, relative to controls receiving fewer but massed exposure to similar amounts of the drug (Salamone, 1992; Stewart, 2003).

Sign-tracking of alcohol drinking and sensitization of alco- hol's psychomotor activating effects are similar in that both are behavioral models of addiction that emphasize similar properties of the inducing experience. They do, however, dif- fer in a number of important ways. For example, sign-tracking procedures provide for oral alcohol drinking of small amounts of alcohol per exposure, with relatively short inter-exposure intervals. In contrast, sensitization procedures provide for systemic or intraventricular injections of larger doses of alco- hol per exposure, with longer inter-exposure intervals. Despite these dosing differences, the ratio of the duration of the inter- exposure interval to the amount of drug delivered per ex- posure is similar for both sign-tracking and sensitization pro- cedures. Furthermore, both procedures demonstrate the direct relationship between the duration of the inter-exposure interval and the amount of sign-tracking or sensitization observed.

Recently additional relationships between sign-tracking and psychomotor sensitization have been reported. For ex- ample, Flagel et al. have reported that those rats that develop sign-tracking CR performance show enhanced propensity to exhibit cocaine-induced psychomotor sensitization, relative to goal-tracking rats that moved to the location of the food receptacle rather than to the lever CS (Flagel et al., 2008). They suggested that sign-trackers are susceptible to a form of cocaine-induced plasticity that may contribute to the devel- opment of addiction. In support of this hypothesis, Flagel et al. have reported that sign-trackers exhibited higher levels of D1 mRNA in NAC core relative to goal-trackers after the first day of training with sign-tracking procedures (Flagel et al., 2007), but after 5 days of training, sign-trackers showed blunted dopaminergic expression patterns relative to goal- trackers, including lower levels of tyrosine hydroxylase, dopamine transporter, and dopamine D2 mRNA relative to goal-trackers (Flagel et al., 2007). These data are consistent with the hypothesis that behavioral changes induced by sign-tracking procedures are related to changes in the dopamine system, and in a manner noted by addiction researchers. For example, lower levels of D2 receptor have been associated with increased craving (Heinz et al., 2004), and increased reports of qdrug-likingq in humans (Volkow et al., 2002). Finally, Flagel et al. (unpublished data) have noted that rats selectively bred for high responsivity to environmental novelty stress are almost exclusively sign- trackers in food US procedures and rats selectively bred for low responsivity to environmental novelty stress exhibit almost exclusively goal-tracking, moving to the location of the food receptacle rather than to the lever CS. When these rats are employed in sign-tracking procedures employing cocaine US, the same results are observed. The high-res- ponders to novelty all acquire sign-tracking CR performance, while none of the low responders do so. Thus, the high res- ponsivity phenotype exhibits sign-tracking in procedures employing either food US or cocaine US, while the low

125B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

responsivity phenotype does not exhibit sign-tracking to signals for either food US or cocaine US.

2.4. Sign-tracking induced by abused drugs

Our hypothesis is that sign-tracking CR performance is induced by experience with repeated pairings of an object CS with drug reward US. There is evidence of precisely this effect in animal studies of drug abuse. The most compelling evidence of this is provided by Uslaner et al. (2006), who used the insertion of a retractable lever as CS and intrave- nous administration of cocaine as US. They reported that when lever CS and cocaine US were paired in a sign-tracking procedure, rats approached and sniffed the lever CS more than pseudoconditioning controls that received the lever CS and cocaine US in an unpaired fashion (Uslaner et al., 2006). Other drug abuse investigators have employed modified sign-tracking procedures to induce lever-pressing of drug self-administration in rats. For example, Carroll and her associates have reported that pairings of the insertion of a lever CS with intravenous administration of drug reward US induced the automatic qshapingq of lever-pressing for drug self-administration in rats. Procedures of this sort have been employed to induce reliable lever-pressing for the self- administration of the cocaine US (Carroll and Lac, 1993, 1997, 1998; Specker et al., 1994; Gahtan et al., 1996; Lynch and Carroll, 1999; Lynch et al., 2001; Campbell and Carroll, 2001; Campbell et al., 2002; Carroll et al., 2002; Roth et al., 2002; see also Panlilio et al., 1996; Weiss et al., 2003 c.f., Di Ciano and Everitt, 2003; Kearns and Weiss, 2004), or the self- administration of the amphetamine US (Carroll and Lac, 1997) or the self-administration of the heroin US (Lynch and Carroll, 1999; Carroll et al., 2002; Roth et al., 2002). In all of these studies, rats developed increasingly frequent lever- pressing as a function of experience with repeated pairings of lever CS with rewarding drug US. The role of sign-tracking, however, remains unclear, because when lever-pressing oc- curred, the drug reward US was administered more quickly than when lever-pressing was not observed. Thus, the drug reward US was not presented independently of responding, as is the case during sign-tracking procedures. An additional problem is that none of these studies included controls for pseudoconditioning, leaving open the possibility that the development of lever-pressing was due to mere experience with repeated presentations of the lever CS per se or to re- peated presentations of the drug reward US per se.

Pairing a visual CS with alcohol US induces sign-tracking CR performance in rats. For example, after provided rats with pairings of a light CS with alcohol US, Krank (2003) observed that they approached the location of the light CS, resulting in increases or decreases in operant lever-pressing for alcohol reinforcement, when the light CS was located either near or far away from the operant lever, respectively. Sign-tracking using alcohol US has also been reported by Cunningham and Patel (2007), who reported that only three pairings of a star CS with alcohol US were required to induce reliable Pavlovian conditioned approach to the star CS as revealed by place conditioning procedures in mice. Tomie and his associates have employed sign-tracking procedures consisting of alco- hol sipper CS paired with food US to induce alcohol sipper

CS-directed consummatory responding, resulting in alcohol drinking (Tomie et al., 2002a Exps 1 and 2, Tomie et al., 2002c, 2003b Exps 1 and 2, Tomie et al., 2004a, 2005b, 2006b). Similar procedures have been employed with chlordiazepoxide in the sipper CS to induce sign-tracking of sipper CS-directed chlo- rdiazepoxide drinking in rats (Tomie et al., 2004c). Most significantly, there is evidence that the drinking of alco- hol from the sipper CS, an action that provides the rat with pairings of sipper CS with alcohol US, induces a pattern of alcohol drinking that is indicative of sign-tracking of sip- per CS-directed alcohol drinking in rats (Tomie et al., 2002c, 2003b Exps 1 and 2; Tomie et al., 2005a, 2006b Exps 1 and 2; see also Tomie et al., 2006a). Thus, the hypothesis that sign- tracking CR performance develops as a function of repeat- ed pairings of an object CS with drug reward US is well supported. Our view is that repeated pairings of an object CS with drug reward US are experienced by humans during the drug-taking sequence, and this leads to the development of sign-tracking CR performance of reflexive and poorly con- trolled drug-taking.

3. Neurobiological substrates

3.1. Stress-related effects

Stressful events play a prominent role in alcohol and drug abuse in humans (Fouquereau et al., 2003; Goeders, 2004; Kreek et al., 2005) and animals (Stewart, 2003; Capriles et al., 2003; Kabbaj et al., 2004; Mantsch and Katz, 2007). Experience with stressful events provokes neuroendocrine responses as well as changes in neurotransmitter systems (Koob, 2006), and drug abuse is related to neurobiological responses to stress, including the release of the glucocorticoid stress hormone corticosterone (Martinelli and Piazza, 2002; Yang et al., 2004; Le et al., 2005), and changes in monoamine neurotransmitter activity (Heinz et al., 2002; Kalivas andMcFarland, 2003; Zhang and Kosten, 2005; Salomon et al., 2006; Sorge and Stewart, 2005). This section reviews evidence that sign-tracking pro- cedures induce changes in corticosterone levels and mono- amine neurotransmitters that resemble the stress-related responses known to accompany alcohol and drug abuse.

3.1.1. Corticosterone There are relationships between corticosterone and sign- tracking inmany animal studies that resemble those observed between corticosterone and the self-administration of abused drugs. For example, addiction researchers have noted that higher plasma corticosterone levels are associatedwith higher levels of alcohol intake (Morin and Forger, 1982; Fahlke et al. 1994a, b; Hansen et al., 1995; Prasad and Prasad, 1995; Higley and Linnoila, 1997), and with more self-administration of other abused drugs (Wise and Bozarth, 1987; Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Piazza and Le Moal, 1996; Koob, 1999; Stewart, 2003). A similar type of relationship between plasma corticos- terone levels and sign-tracking has been documented in sev- eral ways. For example, pretreatment with ketoconazole, a corticosterone synthesis inhibitor, decreased the rate of ac- quisition of sign-tracking CR performance of cocaine self- administration in rats (Campbell and Carroll, 2001), and

126 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

adrenalectomy reduced sign-tracking CR performance in rats that was previously established by pairings of lever CS with food US (Thomas and Papini, 2001).

There isalsoevidence thatmereexperiencewithsign-tracking procedures induces corticosterone release in rats (Tomie et al., 2002b Exp 1, Tomie et al., 2003a, 2004b), and this finding is particularly intriguing in view of the postulated relationships between sign-tracking and drug-taking and between corticoster- one and drug-taking. In these studies, rats trained with sign- tracking procedures that consisted of pairings of lever CS with foodUS showedhigher post-sessionplasma corticosterone levels than controls trained with lever CS and food US presented randomly with respect to one another (Tomie et al., 2002b Exp 1, Tomie et al., 2003a, 2004b). For example, in a number of studies, plasma samples collected immediately following the 20th daily sign-tracking session revealed higher corticosterone levels in the Paired group relative to the Random control group (Tomie et al., 2002b Exp 1, Tomie et al., 2003a, 2004b). Most significantly, group differences in plasma corticosterone levels in rats were also observed in plasma samples collected immediately following the first sign-tracking session (Tomie et al., 2002b Exp 2), which preceded the acquisition of sign-tracking lever-press CR perfor- mance in the Paired group. This indicates that the effect of training with sign-tracking procedures on plasma corticosterone levels is not a by-product of group differences in lever-pressing frequency. Corticosterone release is induced by experience with lever CS− food US paired sign-tracking procedures and is evident prior to the expression of sign-tracking CR performance. One possibility is that corticosterone induces a state of arousal (Merali et al., 1998; see also Killeen et al., 1978) that is conducive to the expression of sign-tracking CR performance (Tomie et al., 2002b, 2004b); moreover, higher levels of corticosterone are related to higher levels of alcohol drinking (Fahlke et al., 1994a,b) and the tendency to self-administer abused drugs (Piazza et al., 1989; Rouge-Pont et al., 1993; Lucas et al., 1998; for reviews see Piazza and Le Moal, 1996; Koob, 1999).

The performance-enhancing effects of corticosterone on sign-tracking CR performance are also revealed by the relation- ship between individual differences in corticosterone release and sign-tracking CR performance. Rats that showed higher novelty stress-induced corticosterone release acquired the lever-press sign-tracking CR more rapidly and maintained higher asymptotic levels of lever-press sign-tracking CR per- formance (Tomie et al., 2000). The effect of vulnerability to novelty stress-induced corticosterone release on sign-tracking CR performance resembles this effect on drug self-administra- tion (Piazza and Le Moal, 1996). Corticosterone is thought to activate mesolimbic dopamine neurons. Between-subjects dif- ferences in sign-trackingCRperformance (Tomieet al., 2000) and amphetamine self-administration (Piazza andLeMoal, 1996) are positively correlated with indices of increased dopaminergic function (i.e., elevations in accumbal levels of dopamine (DA) and DOPAC). This pattern of results suggests that corticosterone release, postulated to activate mesolimbic DA neurotransmis- sion producing psychomotor activation (Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Wise and Bozarth, 1987), may also be involved in pro- moting the expression of sign-tracking CRs and drug-taking responses. The possibility that elevated plasma corticosterone levelsmaycontribute to sign-trackingCRexpressionaswellas to vulnerability to drug abuse adds to the growing list of common

features shared by both (Tomie, 1995a, 1996, 2001). The patho- physiological profiles of vulnerability to sign-tracking and drug abuse are considered in more detail in Section 3.3.

3.1.2. Monoamines Additional stress-like effects induced by sign-tracking proce- dures are the changes associated with monoamine neuro- transmitter levels andmonoamine neurotransmitter turnover in forebrain areas. In addition to the release of corticosterone, sign-tracking procedures induced stress-like changes in fore- brain norepinephrine and serotonin. For example, sign-tracking procedures induce changes in centralmonoamine systems that resemble stress-induced sensitization effects. Paired sign- tracking procedures induce higher levels of norepinephrine (NE) andserotonin (5-HT) in theprefrontal cortex (PFC) butnot in the striatum relative to Random controls (Tomie et al., 2004b), and this pattern of results bears a striking similarity to the effects of stressful events, like electric shock (Adell et al., 1988; Yoshioka et al., 1995; Koob, 1999). Stress may play a crucial role in drug addiction, by sensitizing crucial neuronal substrates to the activating effects of abused drugs (Piazza and LeMoal, 1996; Koob, 1999; Stewart, 2003); therefore, these stress-like changes induced by experience with CS–US paired sign-tracking proce- dures may also serve to accentuate the activating effects of abused drugs.

A stress-like effect on 5-HT receptor binding has also been observed in sign-tracking (Tomie et al., 2003a; Mene- ses et al., 2004). The relationship between stress and reduc- ed 5-HT1A receptor function has been documented in several ways. Chronic mild stress reduced adrenocortico- trophic hormone responses to 8-OH-DPAT, a 5-HT1A recep- tor agonist (Grippo et al., 2005). Stress reduces 5-HT1A

messenger RNA gene expression in hippocampus in rats (Lopez et al., 1999) and 5-HT1A receptor binding, as measured by autoradiography, in the hippocampus in rats and humans (Lopez et al., 1998). Sign-tracking investigators have reported that corticosterone levels are elevated by omission procedures providing for cancellation of the food US on trials that the rat performs the lever-press sign- tracking CR, relative to non-omission controls (Tomie et al., 2003a), suggesting that the omission procedure is stressful. Autoradiography revealed lower post-synaptic 5-HT1A

receptor binding in the omission group than in the non- omission controls, in several brain areas, including frontal cortex, septum and caudate putamen (Tomie et al., 2003a). More recently, it has been reported that 3H-8-OH-DPAT-label- ed binding of 5-HT1A receptors was lower in septum and caudate putamen in rats receiving lever CS− food US sign- tracking procedures than in untrained controls (Meneses et al., 2004). Several studies suggest 5-HT1A receptors may mediate drug-taking responses in rats. For example, ipsapir- one, a 5-HT1A partial agonist reduced ethanol intake in rats (for review, see Schreiber et al., 1999), while NAN-190, a selective 5-HT1A receptor antagonist decreased intravenous self-administration of methamphetamine in rats (Novakoval et al., 2000). Furthermore, it is known that repeated admin- istration of alcohol (Rothman et al., 2000; Chastain, 2006) or psychomotor stimulants (Weiss et al., 1992; Levy et al., 1994; Rothman et al., 2000; Marshall et al., 2007) result in synaptic deficits in 5-HT. Thus, these stress-like changes in

127B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

corticosterone and monoamine levels and 5-HT receptor binding induced by sign-tracking are not unlike the profile of neurobiological features associated with drug abuse (Piazza and LeMoal, 1996; Marinelli and Piazza, 2002; Stewart, 2003).

3.2. Dopamine pathways

3.2.1. Nucleus accumbens The addictive properties of various drugs depend on themeso- corticolimbic DA system (Wise and Bozarth, 1985; Koob and Bloom, 1988; Carelli, 2002; Saal et al., 2003) and its projection to the nucleus accumbens (NAC) from the ventral tegmental area (VTA) in the brainstem (Zito et al., 1985; Wise and Rompre, 1989; Everitt et al., 2001;Marinelli andPiazza, 2002;Ghitza et al., 2004). The NAC has been shown to be crucial for the development of Pavlovian conditioned responses to natural rewards (for review see Day and Carelli, 2007), abused drugs (Ghitza et al., 2003; Cardinal and Everitt, 2004; Di Chiara et al., 2004), and to sign-tracking CR performance (Parkinson et al., 1999, 2000, 2002; Di Ciano et al., 2001; Dalley et al., 2002; Cardinal et al., 2002; Everitt and Robbins, 2005).

Lesions of the NAC disrupt the acquisition of sign-tracking CR performance in rats (Parkinson et al., 2000; Di Ciano et al., 2001; Parkinson et al., 2002; Dalley et al., 2002; Cardinal et al., 2002) and the maintenance of performance of previously learned sign-tracking CRs (Parkinson et al., 1999; Parkinson et al., 2002). For example, in rats, DA-depleting lesions of the NAC, induced by bilateral infusions of 6-hydroxydopamine directly into the NAC, impaired the acquisition of sign- tracking of light CS-directed contact CRs during training with light CS− food US sign-tracking procedures (Dalley et al., 2002).

3.2.1.1. Nucleus accumbens core. The NAC is a heterogene- ous structure that can be further divided into anatomically and functionally distinct core and shell subregions (Zahm and Brog, 1992; Zahm, 2000). Selective excitotoxic lesions of the core of the NAC during training impaired the acquisition of sign-tracking CR performance in rats (Parkinson et al., 2000). Lesioned rats failed to approach the light CS+ that had been paired with food USonmore trials than shamcontrols, and lesioned rats failed to acquire a discriminative sign-tracking task, even though CS+ was paired with food and CS−was not (Cardinal et al., 2002). On the other hand, unilateral lesions of the medial PFC and the medial caudate putamen produced attentional deficits, but had no effect on the acquisition of Pavlovian sign-tracking CR performance in rats (Christakou et al., 2005).

The involvement of the NAC core in Pavlovian sign- tracking has also been implicated by the deleterious effects on discriminative Pavlovian sign-tracking CR performance following infusions of glutamatergic or dopaminergic re- ceptor antagonists (Di Ciano et al., 2001). Infusions of NMDA (N-methyl-D-aspartic acid) or the dopamine D1/D2 receptor antagonist alpha-flupenthixol into the NAC core during training impaired the acquisition of sign-tracking CR perfor- mance in rats. These rats performed fewer conditioned approach responses directed at the lever CS+ that was paired with food US, relative to vehicle controls, and, in addi- tion, failed to discriminate between CS+ and CS−, even though CS− was not paired with food US (Di Ciano et al., 2001).

3.2.1.2. Nucleus accumbens shell. There is evidence that the shell of the NAC is also involved in the Pavlovian conditioning of appetitive approach CRs. Rats acquired a conditioned ap- proach response to a compound light/auditory CS paired with sucrose US more rapidly when D-amphetamine was infused post-session into the shell of the NAC than into the core or dorsal striatum (Phillips et al., 2003a). This finding is in agree- ment with immunohistochemical evidence showing that Pavlovian approach conditioning is associated with activation of dopaminergic terminals specifically within the shell of the NAC (Phillips et al., 2003b,c). DA activity in NAC shell and core was investigated immunohistochemically using antibodies raised against glutaraldehyde-conjugated DA (Phillips et al., 2003b). During acquisition of Pavlovian conditioned approach to a visual CS that preceded sucrose US, DA activity in NAC shell was more elevated than in NAC core during the initial stages of CR acquisition, and neither area was responsive during asymptotic CR performance (Phillips et al., 2003b).

The shell of the NAC may have an effect on the initial acquisition of Pavlovian conditioning of approach responses by influencing the rewarding effects of novelty. Single-unit recording using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry to assess DA release revealed that DA efflux increased only during the brief period of entry into novelty and the increase was confined to the shell of the NAC (Rebec, 1998). In this study, neither the accumbal core nor the overlying neostriatum showed a novelty-related DA change. Using single-unit recording to assess neuronal activity, approach to novelty was accompa- nied by roughly equal proportions of neuron excitations and inhibitions in core but a shift away from excitation toward inhibition in shell. Widespread activation of core units during approach to novelty suggested a role for core activation in the initiation of appetitive behavioral responses (Rebec, 1998; Wood and Rebec, 2004, see also Corbit et al., 2001; Sellings and Clarke, 2003; Ghitza et al., 2004; Balleine, 2005).

3.2.2. Anterior cingulate cortex Anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) projects to NAC core and has been implicated as an area related to drug craving (Everitt and Robbins, 2005) and primed reinstatement of drug-taking responses (Kalivas and McFarland, 2003). In human cocaine addicts, imaging by positron emission tomography of synaptic activity related to addict-generated mental imagery of drug craving was associated with bilateral activation of ACC (Kilts et al., 2001), while in rats, bilateral lesions of the ACC produced a decrease in acquisition of heroin self-administration and a decrease in relapse of heroin-taking in rats (Trafton and Marquez, 1971). Lesions of ACC impair sign-tracking CR per- formance in rats (Bussey et al., 1997; Parkinson et al., 2000; Cardinal et al., 2002, 2003), and disconnection of the ACC from the core of the NAC also impaired the acquisition of sign- tracking CR performance (Parkinson et al., 2000). Lesions of ACC also impair differential responding to CS+ and CS− in discrimi- native sign-tracking procedures (Bussey et al., 1997; Cardinal et al., 2002). The effects of lesions of ACC on sign-tracking are unlikely due to general impairment of cognitive or motor function, as lesions of ACC impaired sign-tracking, but had no effect on a variety of Pavlovian conditioning tasks, including goal-tracking, conditioned reinforcement, conditioned freezing and Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer (Cardinal et al., 2003).

128 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

3.2.3. Pendunculopontine tegmental nucleus Thependunculopontine tegmental nucleus (PPTg) is a brain-stem output of the limbic system that projects to dopaminergic midbrain areas that connect to the nucleus accumbens (Steini- ger-Brach and Kretschmer, 2005). The PPTg is involved in motor activitydrivenby theDAsystem(Steiniger, 2004) that is critical for the performance of complex motivated behavior (Bechara and van der Kooy, 1989). The PPTg exerts this influence by altering response selection processes in the NAC (Steiniger-Brach and Kretschmer, 2005). The PPTg has been implicated in the self- administration of abused drugs (Corrigall et al., 2002), including alcohol (Samson and Chappell, 2001). NMDA-lesions of the PPTg disrupt the learning of conditioned place preference based on injections ofmorphine or amphetamine (Olmstead and Franklin, 1994). In sign-tracking, PPTgmay play a role in the learning of the association between theCS and rewardingUS. PPTg-lesioned rats fail to respond differentially to CS+ that is paired with the US reward, as compared to CS−, which is not paired with US reward, as evidenced by the finding that rats approached theCS+ andCS− with equal frequency, and the latencies to respond to the two stimuli did not differ (Inglis et al., 2000). Thus, lesions of the PPTg disrupted the learning of conditioned approach responses in drug-seeking and sign-tracking procedures.

3.3. Vulnerability markers

The neurobiological characteristics of rats that perform more lever-press sign-tracking CRs (Tomie et al., 2000) sharemuch in common with pathophysiological markers of vulnerability to drugabuse (Piazza and LeMoal, 1996). Rats that performedmore lever-press sign-tracking CRs showed more novelty stress- induced corticosterone release, higher DA levels in NAC, lower DOPAC/DA turnover ratios in caudate putamen, lower 5-HIAA/ 5-HT turnover in theVTA, butnoevidenceofelevateddopamine activity in PFC. Similarly, rats that more readily self-administer amphetamine showed more novelty stress-induced corticos- terone release (Piazza et al., 1989; Rouge-Pont et al., 1993; Piazza and Le Moal, 1996; Lucas et al., 1998), higher indices of DA functioning in NAC (Piazza et al., 1989; Rouge-Pont et al., 1993; Piazza and Le Moal, 1996; Lucas et al., 1998), but not in PFC (Simon et al., 1988; Piazza et al., 1991) and lower indices of 5-HT functioning in VTA (Piazza et al., 1991; see also Kelland et al., 1990). These results add to the growing body of evidence suggesting that sign-tracking and drug abuse may be related phenomena (Tomie, 1995a, 1996; Tomie et al., 2000; Everitt et al., 2001; Uslaner et al., 2006; Flagel et al., 2007, 2008).

4. Sign-tracking as attribution of incentive salience

Addiction researchers have long recognized that stimuli pair- ed with abused drugs acquire incentive motivational proper- ties (Wikler, 1967; Sherman et al., 1989; Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Robbins and Everitt, 1999; Glasner et al., 2005). These are typically viewed as Pavlovian CRs that activate subjective, emotional ormotivation states that contribute to the incentive to consume the drug, thereby increasing the likelihood that the user will perform the physical actions of drug-taking. A more precise formulation of how Pavlovian incentive motiva-

tional processes may contribute to drug abuse is offered by Incentive Sensitization Theory (IST), which proposes that addictive drugs sensitize the neural reward function, increas- ing the positive reward value of drug-taking (Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Berridge and Robinson, 2003). Sensitization of the drug's rewarding effects may provide further incentive for increasing drug intake, causing the individual to increasingly crave the drug's effects (Robinson and Berridge, 2000, 2001). Most significantly, stimuli paired with the drug develop incentive salience, a motivational component of reward that, according to IST, makes objects paired with reward especially attractive and highly desired (Berridge, 2001). Thus, IST predicts that stimulus objects paired with reward will become motivational magnets (Berridge, 2001).

It has recently been proposed that sign-tracking CR per- formance may be the overt behavioral manifestation of the attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues (Uslaner et al., 2006; Flagel et al., 2007, 2008). According to this view, repeated pairings of lever CSwith foodUS leads to sign-tracking CR performance due to the attribution of incentive salience, which makes the lever CS highly salient and attractive and desired. Thus, the lever CS becomes a motivational magnet, compelling the rat to approach and contact the lever CS, even though the performance is not necessary to obtain food.

The hypothesis that sign-tracking reflects the attribution of incentivesalience to the leverCS is supportedby the finding that rats vulnerable to developing sign-tracking CR performance show greater propensity to exhibit cocaine-induced psychomo- tor sensitization (Flagel et al., 2008), suggesting that individual differences in the tendency to sign-track are associated with differences in the tendency to attribute incentive salience to a discrete reward-related cue. This, in turn, suggests that sign- trackers are susceptible to a form of cocaine-induced plasticity that may contribute to the development of addiction (Robinson and Berridge, 2000; Berridge, 2001). These results suggest that drug abusers are individuals prone to develop pathological levels of incentive salience attributed to reward-related cues. Although further studies are required to develop more fully the possible relationship between sign-tracking CR performance andattributionof incentive salience, this approachmay serve to integrate further our understanding of the behavioral and neurobiological determinants of drug abuse.

Acknowledgments

Authors thank Barbara A. Zito for numerous thoughtful suggestions. Funds for these studies were provided in part by National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant R21 AAA-12023-02 awarded to A.T., and National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism grant R01 AAA-10124-03 awarded to L.A.P. Preparation of thismanuscript was supported by funds from the Center of Alcohol Studies, Rutgers University.

R E F E R E N C E S

Adell, A., Trullas, R., Gelpi, E., 1988. Time course of changes in serotonin and noradrenaline in rat brain after predictable or unpredictable shock. Brain Res. 459, 54–59.

129B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

Allen, T., Moeller, F.G., Rhoades, H.M., Cherek, D.R., 1998. Impulsivity and history of drug dependence. Drug Alcohol Depend 50, 137–145.

Ambrosio, E., Goldberg, S.R., Elmer, G.I., 1995. Behavioral genetic investigation of the relationship between spontaneous locomotor activity and the acquisition of morphine self-administration behavior. Behav. Pharmacol. 6, 229–237.

Anderson, K.G., Woolverton, W.L., 2005. Effects of clomipramine on self-control choice in Lewis and Fischer 344 rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 80, 387–393.

Araujo, A.P.N., DeLucia, R., Scavone, C., Planeta, C.S., 2003. Repeated predictable or unpredictable stress: effects on cocaine-induced locomotion and cyclic AMP-dependent protein kinase activity. Behav. Brain Res. 139, 75–81.

Atnip, G.W., 1977. Stimulus- and response-reinforcer contingencies in autoshaping, operant, classical, and omission training procedures in rats. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 28, 59–69.

Balcells-Olivero, M., Vezina, P., 1997. Effects of naltrexone on amphetamine-induced locomotion and rearing: acute and repeated injections. Psychopharmacology 131, 230–238.

Balleine, B.W., 2005. Neural bases of food-seeking: affect, arousal and reward in corticostriatolimbic circuits. Physiol. Behav. 86, 717–730.

Balsam, P.D., 1985. The functions of context in learning and performance. In: Balsam, P.D., Tomie, A. (Eds.), In Context and Learning. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 1–21.

Bechara, A., van der Kooy, D., 1989. The tegmental pedunculopontine nucleus: a brain-stem output of the limbic system critical for the conditioned place preferences produced by morphine and amphetamine. J. Neurosci. 9, 3400–3409.

Berridge, K.C., 2001. Reward learning: reinforcement, incentives and expectations. In: Medin, D. (Ed.), Psychology of Learning and Motivation. Academic Press, pp. 223–278.

Berridge, K.C., Robinson, T.E., 2003. Parsing reward. Trends Neurosci. 26, 507–513.

Bickel, W.K., Marsch, L.A., 2001. Toward a behavioral economic understanding of drug dependence: delay discounting processes. Addiction. 96, 73–86.

Breland, K., Breland, M., 1961. The misbehavior of organisms. Amer. Psychologist 16, 681–683.

Breland, K., Breland, M., 1966. Animal behavior. Macmillan, New York.

Brown, P.L., Jenkins, H.M., 1968. Auto-shaping of the pigeon's key-peck. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 11, 1–8.

Bussey, T.J., Everitt, B.J., Robbins, T.W., 1997. Dissociable effects of cingulate andmedial frontal cortex lesions on stimulus-reward learning using novel Pavlovian autoshaping procedure for the rat: implications for the neurobiology of emotion. Behav. Neurosci. 111, 908–919.

Campbell, U.C., Carroll, M.E., 2001. Effects of ketoconazole on the acquisition of intravenous cocaine self-administration under different feeding conditions in rats. Psychopharmacology 154, 311–318.

Campbell, U.C., Morgan, A.D., Carroll, M.E., 2002. Sex differences in the effects of baclofen on the acquisition of intravenous cocaine self-administration in rats. Drug Alcohol Depend 66, 61–69.

Capriles, N., Rodaros, D., Sorge, R.E., Stewart, J., 2003. A role for the prefrontal cortex in stress-and cocaine-induced reinstatement of cocaine seeking in rats. Psychopharmacology 168, 66–74.

Cardinal, R.N., Everitt, B.J., 2004. Neural and psychological mechanisms underlying appetitive learning: links to drug addiction. Curr. Opin. Neurobiol. 14, 156–162.

Cardinal, R.N., Parkinson, J.A., Lachenal, G., Halkerston, K.M., Rudarakanchana, N., Hall, J., Morrison, C.H., Howes, S.R., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 2002. Effects of selective excitotoxic lesions of the nucleus accumbens core, anterior cingulate cortex, and central nucleus of the amygdala on autoshaping performance in rats. Behav. Neurosci. 116, 553–567.

Cardinal, R.N., Parkinson, J.A., Marbini, H.D., Toner, A.J., Bussey, T.J., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 2003. Role of the anterior cingulate cortex in the control over behavior by Pavlovian conditioned stimuli in rats. Behav. Neurosci. 117, 566–587.

Carelli, R.M., 2002. The nucleus accumbens and reward: neurophysiological investigations in behaving animals. Behav. Cogn. Neurosci. Rev. 1, 281–296.

Car, H., Murtazina, E., 1994. Studies on arginine-vasopressin and its analogue [D(CH-sub-2) 1 5, TYR(ME)-2]AVP in lever-touch autoshapingmodel ofmemory in rats. Asia Pac. J. Pharmacol. 9, 149–152.

Carroll, M.E., Lac, S.T., 1993. Autoshaping IV cocaine self-administration in rats: effects of nondrug alternative reinforcers on acquisition. Psychopharmacology 110, 5–12.

Carroll, M.E., Lac, S.T., 1997. Acquisition of IV amphetamine and cocaine self-administration in rats as a function of dose. Psychopharmacology 129, 206–214.

Carroll, M.E., Lac, S.T., 1998. Dietary additives and the acquisition of cocaine self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology 137, 81–89.

Carroll, M.E., Morgan, A.D., Lynch, W.J., Campbell, U.C., Dess, N.K., 2002. Intravenous cocaine and heroin self-administration in rats selectively bred for differential saccharin intake: phenotype and sex differences. Psychopharmacology 161, 304–313.

Carter, B.L., Tiffany, S.T., 1999. Meta-analysis of cue-reactivity in addiction research. Addiction 94, 327–340.

Charrier, D., Thiebot, M.H., 1996. Effects of psychotropic drugs on rats responding in an operant paradigm involving choice between delayed reinforcers. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 54, 149–157.

Chastain, G., 2006. Alcohol, neurotransmitter systems, and behavior. J. Gen. Psychol. 133, 329–335.

Chen, A.C.H., Porjesz, B., Rangaswamy,M., Kamarajan, C., Tang, Y., Jones, K.A., Chorlian, D.B., Stimus, A.T., Begleiter, H., 2007. Reduced frontal lobe activity in subjects with high impulsivity and alcoholism. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 31, 156–165.

Christakou, A., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 2005. Prolonged neglect following unilateral disruption of a prefrontal cortical-dorsal striatal system. Eur. J. Neurosci. 21, 782–792.

Corbit, L.H., Janak, P.H., 2007. Ethanol-associated cues produce general Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 31, 766–774.

Corbit, L.H., Muir, J.L., Balleine, B.W., 2001. The role of the nucleus accumbens in instrumental conditioning: evidence of a functional dissociation between accumbens core and shell. J. Neurosci. 21, 3251–3260.

Cooney, N.L., Baker, L.H., Pomerleau, O.F., 1983. Cue exposure for relapse prevention in alcohol treatment. In: McMahon, R.J., Craig, K.D. (Eds.), Advances in Clinical Behavior Therapy. Brunner/Mazel, New York, pp. 194–210.

Correa, M., Arizzi, M.N., Betz, A., Mingote, S., 2003. Locomotor stimulant effects of intraventricular injections of low doses of ethanol in rats: acute and repeated administration. Psychopharmacology 170, 368–375.

Corrigall, W.A., Coen, K.M., Zhang, J., Adamson, K.L., 2002. Pharmacological manipulations of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus in the rat reduces self-administration of both nicotine and cocaine. Psychopharmacology 160, 198–205.

Crombag, H.S., Badiani, A., Chan, J., Dell-Orco, J., Dineen, S.P., Robinson, T.E., 2001. The ability of environmental context to facilitate psychomotor sensitization to amphetamine can be dissociated from its effect on acute drug responsiveness and on conditioned responding. Neuropsychopharmacology 24, 680–690.

Cunningham, C.L., Patel, P., 2007. Rapid induction of Pavlovian approach to an ethanol-paired visual cue in mice. Psychopharmacology, 192, 231–241.

Dalley, J.W., Chudasama, Y., Theobald, D.E., Pettifer, C.L., Fletcher, C.M., Robbins, T.W., 2002. Nucleus accumbens dopamine and

130 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

discriminated approach learning: interactive effects of 6-hydroxydopamine lesions and systemic apomorphine administration. Psychopharmacology 161, 425–433.

Davey, G.C.L., Cleland, G.G., 1982. Topography of signal-centered behavior in the rat: effects of deprivation state and reinforcer type. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 38, 204–291.

Davey, G.C.L., Oakley, D., Cleland, G.C., 1981. Autoshaping in the rat: effects of omission on the form of the response. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 36, 75–91.

Day, J.J., Carelli, R.M., 2007. The nucleus accumbens and Pavlovian reward learning. Neuroscientist 13, 148–159.

Di Chiara, G., Bassareo, V., Fenu, S., De Luca, M.A., Spina, L., Cadoni, C., Acquas, E., Carboni, E., Valentini, V., Lecca, D., 2004. Dopamine and drug addiction: the nucleus accumbens shell connection. Neuropharmacology 47, 227–241.

Di Ciano, P., Everitt, B.J., 2003. Differential control over drug-seeking behavior by drug-associate conditioned reinforcers and discriminative stimuli predictive of drug availability. Behav. Neurosci. 117, 952–960.

Di Ciano, P., Cardinal, R.N., Cowell, R.A., Little, S.J., Everitt, B.J., 2001. Differential involvement of NMDA, AMPH/Kainate, and dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens core in the acquisition and performance of Pavlovian approach behavior. J. Neurosci. 21, 9471–9477.

Dom, G., D'haene, P., Hulstijn, W., Sabbe, B., 2006a. Impulsivity in abstinent early-and late-onset alcoholics: differences in self-reportmeasuresandadiscounting task.Addiction101,50–59.

Dom, G., Hutstijn, W., Sabbe, B., 2006b. Differences in impulsivity and sensation seeking between early-and late-onset alcoholics. Addict. Behav. 31, 298–308.

Epstein, D.H., Preston, K.L., Stewart, J., Shanham, Y., 2006. Toward a model of drug relapse: an assessment of the validity of the reinstatement procedure. Psychopharmacology 189, 1–16.

Erb, S., Funk, D., Le, A.D., 2003. Prior, repeated exposure to cocaine potentiates locomotor responsivity to central injections of corticotrophin-releasing factor (CRF) in rats. Psychopharmacology 170, 383–389.

Evenden, J.L., Ryan, C.N., 1996. The pharmacology of impulsive behavior in rats: the effects of drugs on response choice with varying delays of reinforcement. Psychopharmacology 128, 161–170.

Everitt, B.J., Robbins, T.W., 2005. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1481–1489.

Everitt, B.J., Dickinson, A., Robbins, T.W., 2001. The neuropsychological basis of addictive behaviour. Brain Res. Rev. 36, 129–136.

Fahlke, C., Engel, J.A., Ericksson, C.J.P., Hard, E., Soderpalm, B., 1994a. Involvement of corticosterone in the modulation of ethanol consumption in the rat. Alcohol 11, 195–202.

Fahlke, C., Hard, E., Thomasson, R., Engel, J.A., Hansen, S., 1994b. Metyrapone-induced suppression of corticosterone synthesis reduced ethanol consumption in high-preferring rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 48, 977–981.

Fattore, L., Spano, M.S., Deiana, S., Melis, V., Cossu, G., Fadda, P., Fratta, W., 2007. An endocannibinoid mechanism in relapse to drug seeking: a review of animal studies and clinical perspectives. Brain Res. Rev. 53, 1–16.

Fillmore, M.T., Rush, C.R., 2002. Impaired inhibitory control of behavior in chronic cocaine users. Drug Alcohol Depend 66, 265–273.

Flagel, S.B., Watson, S.J., Robinson, T.E., Akil, H., 2007. Individual differences in the propensity to approach signals vs goals promote different adaptations in the dopamine system of rats. Psychopharmacology 19, 599–607.

Flagel, S.B., Watson, S.J., Akil, H., Kosten, T.R., Robinson, T.E., 2008. Individual differences in the attribution of incentive salience to a reward-related cue: influence on cocaine sensitization. Behav. Brain Res. 186, 48–56.

Fouquereau, E., Fernandez, A., Mullet, E., Sorum, P.C., 2003. Stress and the urge to drink. Addict. Behav. 28, 669–685.

Fox, H.C., Berqquist, K.L., Hong, K.I., Sinha, R., 2007. Stress-induced and alcohol cue-induced craving in recently abstinent alcohol-dependent individuals. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 31, 395–403.

Fukami, G., Hashimoto, K., Koike, K., Okamura, N., Shimizu, E., Iyo, M., 2004. Effect of antioxidant N-acetyl-L-cysteine on behavioral changes and neurotoxicity in rats after administration of methamphetamine. Brain Res. 1016, 90–95.

Gahtan, E., LaBounty, L.P., Wyvell, C., Carroll, M.E., 1996. The relationships among saccharin consumption, oral ethanol, and i.v. cocaine self-administration. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 53, 919–925.

Ghitza, U.E., Fabbricatore, A.T., Prokopenko, V.F., Pawiak, A.P., West, M.O., 2003. Persistent cue-evoked activity of accumbens neurons after prolonged abstinence from self-administered cocaine. J. Neurosci. 23, 7239–7245.

Ghitza, U.E., Fabbricatore, A.T., Prokopenko, V.F., West, M.O., 2004. Differences between accumbens core and shell neurons exhibiting phasic firing patterns related to drug-seeking behavior during a discriminative stimulus task. J. Neurophysiol. 92, 1608–1614.

Glasner, S.V., Overmier, J.B., Balleine, B.W., 2005. The role of Pavlovian cues in alcohol seeking in dependent and nondependent rats. J. Stud. Alcohol 66, 53–61.

Goeders, N.E., 2004. Stress, motivation, and drug addiction. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 13, 33–35.

Grippo, A.J., Sullivan, N.R., Damjanoska, K.J., Crane, J.W., Carrasco, G.A., Shi, J., Chen, Z., Garcia, F., Muma, N.A., Van de Kar, L.D., 2005. Chronic mild stress induces behavioral and physiological changes, andmay alter serotonin 1A receptor function, inmale and cycling female rats. Psychopharmacology 179, 769–780.

Haile, C.N., Kosten, T.A., 2001. Differential effects of D1-and D2-like compounds on cocaine self-administration in Lewis and Fischer 344 inbred rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 299, 509–518.

Haile, C.N., During, M.J., Jatlow, P.I., Kosten, T.R., Kosten, T.A., 2003. Disulfiram facilitates the development and expression of locomotor sensitization to cocaine in rats. Biol. Psychiatry 54, 915–921.

Hammersley, R., 1992. Cue exposure and learning theory. Addict. Behav. 17, 297–300.

Hansen, S., Fahlke, C., Hard, E., Thomasson, R., 1995. Effects of ibotenic-acid lesions of the ventral striatum and the medial prefrontal cortex on ethanol consumption in the rat. Alcohol 12, 397–402.

Hearst, E., Jenkins, H.M., 1974. Sign tracking: the stimulus-reinforcer relation and directed action. Monogr. Psychon. Soc. Austin, TX: Psychonomics.

Heinz, A., Jones, D.W., Bissette, G., Hommer, D., Ragan, P., Knable, M.,Weliek, S., Linnoila, M.,Weinberger, D.R., 2002. Relationship between cortisol and serotoninmetabolites and transporters in alcoholism. Pharmacopsychiatry 35, 127–134.

Heinz, A., Siessmeier, T., Wrase, J., Hermann, D., Klein, S., Grusser, S.M., Flor, H., Braus, D.F., Buchholz, H.G., Grunder, G., Schreckenberger, M., Smolka, M.N., Rosch, F., Mann, K., Bartenstein, P., 2004. Correlation between dopamine D(2) receptors in the ventral striatum and central processing of alcohol cues and craving. Ann. J. Psychiatry 161, 1783–1789.

Higley, J.D., Linnoila, M., 1997. A nonhuman primate model of excessive alcohol intake (personality and neurobiological parallels of type I-and type II-like alcoholism). In: Galanter, M. (Ed.), Recent Developments in Alcoholism, 13. Plenum Press, New York, pp. 191–219.

Holland, R.C., 1979. Differential effects of omission contingencies on various components of Pavlovian appetitive conditioned responding in rats. J. Exp. Psychol., Anim. Behav. Processes 5, 178–193.

131B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

Hoshaw, B.A., Lewis, M.J., 2001. Behavioral sensitization to ethanol in rats: evidence from the Sprague–Dawley strain. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 68, 685–690.

Hunt,W.A., Lands,W.E., 1992. A role for behavioral sensitization in uncontrolled ethanol intake. Alcohol 9, 327–328.

Inglis, W.L., Olmstead, M.C., Robbins, T.W., 2000. Pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions impair stimulus–reward learning in autoshaping and conditioned reinforcement paradigms. Behav. Neurosci. 114, 285–294.

Jentsch, J.D., Taylor, J.R., 1999. Impulsivity resulting from frontostriatal dysfunction in drug abuse: implications for the control of behavior by reward-related stimuli. Psychopharmacology 146, 373–390.

Junghanns, K., Tietz, U., Dibbelt, L., Kuether, M., Jurth, R., Ehrenthal, D., Blank, S., Backhaus, J., 2005. Attenuated salivary cortisol secretion under cue exposure is associated with early relapse. Alcohol Alcohol 40, 80–85.

Kabbaj, M., Evans, S., Watson, S.J., Akil, H., 2004. The search for the neurobiological basis of vulnerability to drug abuse: using microarrays to investigate the role of stress and individual differences. Neuropharmacology 47, 111–122.

Kalivas, P.W., McFarland, K., 2003. Brain circuitry and the reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior. Psychopharmacology 168, 44–56.

Kearns, D.N., Weiss, S.J., 2004. Sign-tracking (autoshaping) in rats: a comparison of cocaine and food as unconditioned stimuli. Learn. Behav. 32, 463–476.

Kearns, D.N., Gomez-Serrano, M.A., Weiss, S.J., Riley, A.L., 2006. A comparison of Lewis and Fischer rat strains on autoshaping (Sign-tracking), discrimination reversal learning and negative automaintenance. Behav. Brain Res. 169, 193–200.

Kelland, M.D., Freeman, A.S., Chiodo, L.A., 1990. Serotonergic afferent regulation of the basic physiology and pharmacological responsiveness of nigrostriatal dopamine neurons. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 253, 803–811.

Killeen, P.R., 2003. Complex dynamic processes in sign tracking with an omission contingency (negative automaintenance). J. Exp. Psychol., Anim. Behav. Proc. 29, 49–60.

Killeen, P.R., Hanson, S.I., Osborne, S.R., 1978. Arousal: its genesis and manifestation as response rate. Psychol. Rev 85, 571–581.

Kilts, C.D., Schweitzer, J.B., Quinn, C.K., Gross, R.E., Faber, T.L., Muhammad, F., Ely, T.D., Hoffman, J.M., Drexler, K.P.G., 2001. Neural activity related to drug craving in cocaine addiction. Arch. Gen. Psychiatry 58, 334–341.

Koob, G.F., 1999. Stress, corticotrophin-releasing factor, and drug addiction. Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci. 897, 27–45.

Koob, G.F., 2006. The neurobiology of addiction: a neuroadaptational view relevant for diagnosis. Brit. J. Addict. 101, 23–30.

Koob, G.F., Bloom, F.E., 1988. Cellular and molecular mechanisms of drug dependence. Science 242, 715–723.

Kosten, T.A., Miserendino, M.J.D., Haile, C.N., DeCaprio, J.L., Jatlow, P.L., Nestler, E.J., 1997. Acquisition and maintenance of intravenous cocaine self-administration in Lewis and Fischer inbred rat strains. Brain Res. 778, 418–429.

Krank, M.D., 2003. Pavlovian conditioning with ethanol: sign-tracking (autoshaping), conditioned incentive, and ethanol self-administration. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 27, 1592–1598.

Kreek, M.J., Nielsen, D.A., Butelman, E.R., LaForge, K.S., 2005. Genetic influences on impulsivity, risk taking, stress responsivity and vulnerability to drug abuse and addiction. Nat. Neurosci. 8, 1450–1457.

Kruzich, P.J., Congleton, K.M., See, R.E., 2001. Conditioned reinstatement of drug-seeking behavior with a discrete compound stimulus classically conditioned with intravenous cocaine. Behav. Neurosci. 115, 1086–1092.

Le, A.D., Harding, S., Juzytsch, W., Funk, D., Shaham, Y., 2005. Role of alpha-2 adrenoceptors in stress-induced reinstatement of

alcohol seeking and alcohol self-administration in rats. Psychopharmacology 179, 366–373.

Lessov, C., Phillips, T.J., 1998. Duration of sensitization to the locomotor stimulant effects of ethanol in mice. Psychopharmacology 135, 374–382.

Levy, A.D., Baumann, M.H., Van de Kar, L.D., 1994. Monoaminergic regulation of neuroendocrine function and its modification by cocaine. Front. Neuroendocrinol. 15, 86–156.

Locurto, C.M., 1981. Contributions of autoshaping to the partitioning of conditioned behavior. In: Locurto, C.M., Terrace, H.S., Gibbon, J. (Eds.), Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory. Academic Press, New York, pp. 101–135.

Loeber, S., Croissant, B., Heinz, A., Mann, K., Flor, H., 2006. Cue exposure in the treatment of alcohol dependence: effects on drinking outcome, craving and self-efficacy. Brit. J. Clin. Psychol. 45, 515–529.

Lopez, J.R., Chalmers, D.T., Little, K.Y., Watson, S.J., 1998. Regulation of serotonin-sub(1A), glucocorticoid, and mineralocorticoid receptor in rat and human hippocampus: implications for the neurobiology of depression. Biol. Psychol. 43, 547–573.

Lopez, J.F., Liberzon, I., Vazquez, D.M., Young, E.A., Watson, S.J., 1999. Serotonin 1A receptor messenger RNA regulation in the hippocampus after acute stress. Biol. Psych. 45, 934–937.

Lucas, L.R., Angulo, J.A., Le Moal, M., McEwen, B.S., Piazza, P.V., 1998. Neurochemical characterization of individual vulnerability to addictive drugs in rats. Eur. J. Neurosci. 10, 3153–3163.

Lynch,W.J., Carroll, M.E., 1999. Sex differences in the acquisition of intravenously self-administered cocaine and heroin in rats. Psychopharmacology 144, 77–82.

Lynch, W.J., Roth, M.E., Mickelberg, J.L., Carroll, M.E., 2001. Role of estrogen in the acquisition of intravenously self-administered cocaine in female rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 68, 641–646.

Mantsch, J.R., Katz, E.S., 2007. Elevation of glucocorticoids is necessary but not sufficient for the escalation of cocaine self-administration by chronic electric footshock stress in rats. Neuropsychopharmacology 32, 367–376.

Marinelli, M., Piazza, P.V., 2002. Interaction between glucocorticoid hormones, stress and psychostimulant drugs. Eur. J. Neurosci. 16, 87–394.

Marlatt, G.A., 1990. Cue exposure and relapse prevention in the treatment of addictive behaviors. Addict. Behav. 15, 395–399.

Marshall, J.F., Belcher, A.M., Feinstein, E.M., O'Dell, S.J., 2007. Methamphetamine-induced neural and cognitive changes in rodents. Addict. 102, 61–69.

Martin, S., Manzanares, J., Corchero, J., Cargia-Lecumberri, C., Crespo, J.A., Fuentes, J.A., Ambrosio, E., 1999. Differential basal proenkephalin gene expression in dorsal striatum and nucleus accumbens, and vulnerability to morphine self-administration in Fischer 344 and Lewis rats. Brain Res. 21, 350–355.

Martinelli, M., Piazza, P.V., 2002. Interaction between glucocorticoid hormones, stress, and psychostimulant drugs. Eur. J. Neurosci. 16, 387–394.

Masur, J., De Souza, M.L., Zwicker, A.P., 1986. The excitatory effect of ethanol absence in rats, no tolerance and increased sensitivity in mice. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 24, 1225–1228.

Matell, M.S., King, G.R., Meck, W.H., 2004. Differential modulation of clock speed by the administration of intermittent versus continuous cocaine. Behav. Neurosci. 118, 150–156.

Mattingly, B.A., Hart, T.C., Lim, K., Perkins, C., 1994. Selective antagonism of dopamine D-sub-1 and D-sub-2 receptors does not block the development of behavioral sensitization to cocaine. Psychopharmacology 114, 239–242.

Meneses, A., Manuel-Apolinar, L., Rocha, L., Castillo, E., Castillo, C., 2004. Expression of the 5-HT receptors in rat brain during memory consolidation. Behav. Brain Res. 152, 425–436.

Merali, Z., McIntosh, J., Kent, P., Michaud, D., Anisman, H., 1998. Aversive and appetitive events evoke the release of

132 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

corticotrophin-releasing hormone and bombesin-like peptides at the central nucleus of the amygdala. J. Neurosci. 18, 4758–4766.

Monterrosso, J., Ainslie, G., 1999. Beyond discounting: possible experimental models of impulse control. Psychopharmacology 146, 339–347.

Monti, P.M., Rohsenow, D., Swift, R.M., Gulliver, S.B., Colby, S.M., Mueller, T.I., Brown, R.A., Gordon, A., Abrams, D.B., Niaura, R.S., Asher, M.K., 2001. Naltrexone and cue exposure with coping and communication skills training for alcoholics: treatment process and 1-year outcomes. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 25, 1634–1647.

Morin, L.P., Forger, N.G., 1982. Endocrine control of ethanol intake by rats or by hamsters: relative contributions of the ovaries, adrenals and steroids. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 17, 529–537.

Nesby, P., Vanderschuren, L.J., De Vries, T.J., Hogenboom, F., Wardeh, G., Mulder, A.H., Schoffelmeer, A.N., 1997. Ethanol, like psychomotor stimulants and morphine, causes long-lasting hyperreactivity of dopamine and acetylcholine neurons of rat nucleus accumbens: possible role in behavioral sensitization. Psychopharmacology 133, 69–76.

Newlin, D.B., 2002. The self-perceived survival ability and reproductive fitness (SPFit) theory of substance use disorders. Addict. 97, 427–445.

Newlin, D.B., Thomson, J.B., 1991. Chronic tolerance and sensitization to alcohol in sons of alcoholics. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 15, 399–405.

Novakoval, J., Vinklerova, J., Sulcova, A., 2000. The role of 5-HT1A

receptor in methamphetamine dependence in rats. Homeost. Health Dis. 40, 252–253.

Ojanen, S.P., Hyytia, P., Kiianmaa, K., 2005. Behavioral sensitization and voluntary ethanol drinking in alcohol-preferring AA rats exposed to different regimens of morphine treatment. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 80, 221–228.

Olmstead, M.C., 2006. Animal models of drug addiction: where do we go from here? Q. J. Exp. Psychol. 59, 625–653.

Olmstead, M.C., Franklin, K.B.J., 1994. Lesions of the pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus block drug-induced reinforcement but not amphetamine-induced locomotion. Brain Res. 638, 29–35.

Panlilio, L.V., Weiss, S.J., Schindler, C.W., 1996. Cocaine self-administration increased by compounding discriminative stimuli. Psychopharmacology 125, 202–208.

Parkinson, J.A., Olmstead, M.C., Burns, L.H., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 1999. Dissociation of effects of lesions of the nucleus accumbens core and shell on appetitive Pavlovian approach behavior and the potentiation of conditioned reinforcement and locomotor activity by D-amphetamine. J. Neurosci. 19, 2401–2411.

Parkinson, J.A., Willoughby, P.J., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 2000. Disconnection of the anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens core impairs Pavlovian approach behavior: further evidence for limbic cortical-ventral striatopallidal systems. Behav. Neurosci. 114, 42–63.

Parkinson, J.A., Dalley, J.W., Cardinal, R.N., Bamford, A., Fehnert, B., Lachenal, G., Rudarakanchana,N.,Halkerston,K.M., Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 2002.Nucleus accumbensdopaminedepletion impairs both acquisition and performance of appetitive Pavlovian approachbehaviour: implications formescoaccumbensdopamine function. Behav. Brain Res. 137, 149–163.

Patton, J.H., Stanford, M.S., Baratt, E.S., 1995. Factor structure of the Barratt Impulsivness Scale. J. Clin. Psychol. 51, 768–774.

Paulson, P.E., Robinson, T.E., 1991. Sensitization to systemic amphetamine produces an enhanced locomotor response to a subsequent intra-accumbens amphetamine challenge in rats. Psychopharmacology 104, 140–141.

Pecins-Thompson, M., Peris, J., 1993. Behavioral and neurochemical changes caused by repeated ethanol and cocaine administration. Psychopharmacology 110, 443–450.

Perry, J.L., Larson, E.B., German, J.B., Madden, G.J., Carroll, M.E., 2005. Impulsivity (delay discounting) as a predictor of acquisition of IV cocaine self-administration in female rats. Psychopharmacology 178, 193–201.

Phillips, T.J., Roberts, A.J., Lessov, C.N., 1997. Behavioral sensitization to ethanol: genetics and the effects of stress. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 57, 487–493.

Phillips, G.D., Setzu, E., Hitchcott, P.K., 2003a. Facilitation of appetitive Pavlovian conditioning by D-amphetamine in the shell, but not the core, of the nucleus accumbens. Behav. Neurosci. 117, 675–684.

Phillips, G.D., Setzu, E., Vugler, A., Hitchcott, P.K., 2003b. Immunohistochemical assessment of mesocorticolimbic dopamine activity during the acquisition and expression of Pavlovian vs. Instrumental behaviours. Neurosci. 117, 755–767.

Phillips, G.D., Setzu, E., Vugler, A., Hitchcott, P.K., 2003c. An immunohistochemical examination of the effects of sensitization on mesotelencephalic dopaminergic response to D-amphetamine. Neurosci. 117, 741–753.

Piazza, P.V., Le Moal, M., 1996. Pathophysiological basis of vulnerability to drug abuse: role of an interaction between stress, glucocorticoids, and dopaminergic neurons. Ann. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 36, 359–378.

Piazza, P.V., Deminiere, J.M., Le Moal, M., Simon, H., 1989. Factors that predict individual vulnerability to amphetamine self-administration. Science 245, 1511–1513.

Piazza, P.V., Rouge-Pont, F., Deminiere, J.M., Kharoubi, M., Le Moal, M., Simon, H., 1991. Dopaminergic activity is reduced in the prefrontal cortex and increased in the nucleus accumbens of rats pre-disposed to develop amphetamine self-administration. Brain Res. 567, 169–174.

Poulos, C.X., Le, A.D., Parker, J.L., 1995. Impulsivity predicts individual susceptibility to high levels of alcohol self-administration. Behav. Pharmacol. 6, 810–814.

Poulos, C.X., Parker, J.L., Le, A.D., 1997. Alcohol dose dependently augments impulsivity in an animal model. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 21, 10a.

Poulos, C.X., Parker, J.L., Le, A.D., 1998. Increased impulsivity after injected alcohol predicts later alcohol consumption in rats: evidence for “loss-of-control drinking” and marked individual differences. Behav. Neurosci. 112, 1247–1257.

Prasad, C., Prasad, A., 1995. A relationship between increased voluntary alcohol preference and basal hypercorticosteronemia associated with an attenuated rise in corticosterone output during stress. Alcohol 12, 59–63.

Quadros, I.M.H., Souza-Formigoni,M.L.O., Fornari,R.V.,Nobrega, J.N., Oliveira, M.G.M., 2003. Is behavioral sensitization to ethanol associated with contextual conditioning in mice? Behav. Pharmacol. 14, 129–136.

Rebec, G.V., 1998. Real-time assessments of dopamine function during behavior: single-unit recording, iontophoresis, and fast-scan cyclic voltammetry in awake, unrestrained rats. Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res. 22, 32–40.

Rescorla, R.A., 2004. Spontaneous recovery varies inversely with the training-extinction interval. Learn. Behav. 32, 401–408.

Rescorla, R.A., 2005. Spontaneous recovery of excitation but not inhibition. J. Exp. Psychol., Anim. Behav. Processes 31, 277–288.

Rescorla, R.A., 2006. Deepened extinction from compound stimulus presentation. J. Exp. Psychol., Anim. Behav. Processes 32, 135–144.

Robbins, S.J., 1990.Mechanismsunderlying spontaneous recovery in autoshaping. J. Exp.Psychol.,Anim.Behav. Processes 16, 235–249.

Robbins, T.W., Everitt, B.J., 1999. Interaction of the dopaminergic system with mechanisms of associative learning and cognition: implications for drug abuse. Psychol. Sci. 10, 199–202.

Robinson, T.E., 1984. Behavioral sensitization: characterization of enduring changes in rotational behavior produced by intermittent injections of amphetamine in male and female rats. Psychopharmacology 84, 466–475.

133B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

Robinson, T.E., Becker, J.B., 1986. Enduring changes in brain and behavior produced by chronic amphetamine administration: a review and evaluation of animal models of amphetamine administration. Brain Res. Rev. 11, 157–198.

Robinson, T.E., Berridge, K.C., 1993. The neural basis of drug craving: an incentive-sensitization theory of addiction. Brain Res. Rev. 18, 247–291.

Robinson, T.E., Berridge, K.C., 2000. The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive-sensitization view. Addict. 95, S91–S117.

Robinson, T.E., Berridge, K.C., 2001. Incentive-sensitization and addiction. Addict. 96, 103–114.

Rohsenow, D.J., Monti, P.M., Rubonis, A.V., Sirota, A.D., Niaura, R.S., Colby, S.,Wunschel, S.M., Abrahsm, D.B., 1994. Cue reactivity as a predictor of drinking among male alcoholics. J. Consult. Clin. Psychol. 62, 620–626.

Roth, M.E., Casimir, A.G., Carroll, M.E., 2002. Influence of estrogen in the acquisition of intravenously self-administered heroin in female rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 72, 313–318.

Rothman, R.B., Partilla, J.S., Dersch, C.M., Carroll, F.I., Rice, K.C., Baumann, M.H., 2000. Methamphetamine dependence: medication development efforts based on the dual deficit model of stimulant addiction. In: Ali, S.F. (Ed.), Neurobiological Mechanisms of Drugs of Abuse: Cocaine, Ibogaine, and Substituted Amphetamines. New York Academy of Sciences, New York, NY, pp. 71–81.

Rouge-Pont, F., Piazza, P.V., Kharouby, M., Le Moal, M., Simon, H., 1993. Higher and longer stress-induced increase in dopamine concentrations in the nucleus accumbens of animals predisposed to amphetamine self-administration: a microdialysis study. Brain Res. 602, 169–174.

Saal, D., Dong, Y., Bond, A., Malenka, R.C., 2003. Drugs of abuse and stress trigger a common synaptic adaption in dopamine neurons. Neuron. 37, 577–582.

Salamone, J.D., 1992. Complexmotor and sensorimotor functions of striatal and accumbens dopamine: involvement in instrumental behavior processes. Psychopharmacology 10, 160–174.

Salomon, L., Lanteri, C., Glowinski, J., Tassin, J., Palmiter, R.D., 2006. Behavioral sensitization to amphetamine results from an uncoupling between noradrenergic and serotonergic neurons. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 103, 7476–7481.

Samson, H.H., Chappell, A., 2001. Injected muscimol in pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus alters ethanol self-administration. Alcohol 23, 41–48.

Schenk, S., Partridge, B., 2000. Sensitization to cocaine's reinforcing effects produced by various cocaine pretreatment regimens in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 66, 765–770.

Schreiber, R., Manze, B., Haussels, A., De Vry, J., 1999. Effects of the 5-HT1A receptor agonist ipsapirone on operant self-administration of ethanol in the rat. Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol 10, 37–42.

Schwartz, B., Gamzu, E., 1977. Pavlovian control of operant behavior: an analysis of autoshaping and its implications for operant conditioning. In: Honig, W.K., Staddon, J.E.R. (Eds.), Handbook of Operant Behavior. Prentice Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, pp. 53–79.

Sellings, L.H.L., Clarke, P.B.S., 2003. Segregation of amphetamine reward and locomotor stimulation between nucleus accumbens medial shell and core. J. Neurosci. 23, 6295–6303.

Serwatkiewicz, C., Limebeer, C., Eikelboom, R., 2000. Sensitization of amphetamine-induced wheel running suppression in rats: dose and context factors. Psychopharmacology 151, 219–225.

Sherman, J.E., Jorenby, M.S., Baker, T.B., 1989. Classical condi- tioning with alcohol: acquired preferences and aversions, tolerance and urges/cravings. In:Wilkinson, D.A., Chandron, D. (Eds.), Theories of Alcoholism,. Addiction Research Foundation, Toronto, pp. 173–237.

Siegel, S., 1989. Pharmacological conditioning and drug effects. In: Goudie, A.J., Emmett-Oglesby, M.W. (Eds.), Psychoactive Drugs:

Tolerance and Sensitization. Contemporary Neuroscience. Humana Press, Totowa, NJ, pp. 115–180.

Simon, H., Gabhzouti, K., Gozlan, H., Studler, J.M., Louilot, A., Herve, D., Glowinski, J., Tassin, J.P., Le Moal, M., 1988. Lesion of dopaminergic terminals in the amygdala produces enhanced locomotor response to D-amphetamine and opposite changes in dopaminergic activity in prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens. Brain Res. 447, 335–340.

Sinha, R., Li, C., 2007. Imaging stress-and cue-induced drug and alcohol craving: association with relapse and clinical implications. Drug Alcohol. Rev. 26, 25–31.

Sorg, B.A., Kalivas, P.W., 1991. Effects of cocaine and footshock stress on extracellular dopamine levels in the ventral striatum. Brain Res. 1991, 29–36.

Sorge, R.E., Stewart, J., 2005. The contribution of drug history and time since termination of drug taking on footshock stress-induced cocaine seeking in rats. Psychopharmacology 183, 210–217.

Specker, S.M., Lac, S.T., Carroll, M.E., 1994. Food deprivation history and cocaine self-administration: an animal model of binge eating. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 48, 1025–1029.

Steiniger, B., 2004. Effects of ibotenate pedunculopontine tegmental nucleus lesions on exploratory behaviour in the open field. Behav. Brain Res. 151, 17–23.

Steiniger-Brach, B., Kretschmer, B.D., 2005. Different function of pedunculopontine GABA and glutamate receptors in nucleus accumbens dopamine, pedunculopontine glutamate and operant discriminative behavior. Eur. J. Neurosci. 22, 1720–1727.

Stewart, J., 2000. Pathways to relapse: the neurobiology of drug-and stress-induced relapse to drug-taking. J. Psychol. Neurosci. 25, 125–136.

Stewart, J., 2003. Stress and relapse to drug seeking: studies in laboratory animals shed light on mechanisms and sources of long-term vulnerability. Amer. J. Addict. 12, 1–17.

Stewart, J., 2004. Pathways to relapse: factors controlling the reinitiation of drug seeking after abstinence. In: Bevins, R.A., Bardo, M.T. (Eds.), Motivational Factors in the Etiology of Drug Abuse. University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln, NE, pp. 197–234.

Stewart, J., de Wit, H., Eikelboom, R., 1984. Role of unconditioned and conditioned drug effects in the self-administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychol. Rev. 91, 251–268.

Suzuki, T., George, F.R., Meisch, R.A., 1988. Differential establishment and maintenance of oral ethanol reinforced behavior in Lewis and Fischer 344 inbred rat strains. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 145, 162–170.

Svrakic, D.M., Przybeck, T.R., Whitehead, C., Clonger, C.R., 1999. Emotional traits and personality dimensions. In: Cloninger, C.R. (Ed.), Personality and Psychopathology. American Psychiatric Association, Washington DC, pp. 245–265.

Thomas, B.L., Papini, M., 2001. Adrenalectomy eliminates the extinction spike in autoshaping with rats. Physiol Behav. 72, 543–547.

Tidey, J.W., Miczek, K.A., 1997. Acquisition of cocaine self-administration after social stress: role of accumbens dopamine. Psychopharmacology 130, 203–212.

Tomie, A., 1981. Effects of unpredictable food upon the subsequent acquisition of autoshaping: analysis of the context blocking hypothesis. In: Locurto, C.M., Terrace, H.S., Gibbon, J. (Eds.), Autoshaping and Conditioning Theory. Academic Press, New York, pp. 181–215.

Tomie, A., 1995. CAM: an animal learning model of excessive and compulsive implement-assisted drug-taking in humans. Clin. Psychol. Rev. 15, 145–167.

Tomie, A., 1995. Self-regulation and animal behavior. Commentary on Baumeister, R. F., & Heatherton, T. F. Self-regulation failure: an overview. Psychol. Inquiry 7, 83–85.

Tomie, A., 1996. Locating reward cue at response manipulandum (CAM) induces symptoms of drug abuse. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 20, 505–535.

134 B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

Tomie, A., 2001. Autoshaping and drug-taking. In: Mowrer, R.R., Klein, S.B. (Eds.), Handbook of Contemporary Learning Theories. Erlbaum, Mahwah, NJ, pp. 409–439.

Tomie, A., Kruse, J.M., 1980. Retardation tests of inhibition following discriminative autoshaping. Anim. Learn. Behav. 8, 402–408.

Tomie, A., Hayden, M., Biehl, D., 1980. Effects of response elimination procedures upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping. Anim. Learn. Behav. 11, 117–134.

Tomie, A., Rohr-Stafford, I., Schwam, K.T., 1981. The retarding effects of the TRC response elimination procedure upon the subsequent reacquisition of autoshaping: comparison of between-and within-subjects assessment procedures and evaluation of the role of background contextual stimuli. Anim. Learn. Behav. 9, 230–238.

Tomie, A., Brooks, W., Zito, B., 1989. Sign-tracking: the search for reward. In: Klein, S.B., Mowrer, R.R. (Eds.), Contemporary Learning Theories: Pavlovian Conditioning and the Status of Traditional Learning Theory. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, pp. 191–223.

Tomie, A., Aguado, A.S., Pohorecky, L.A., Benjamin, D., 1998. Ethanol induces impulsive-like responding in a delay-of-reward operant choice procedure: impulsivity predicts autoshaping. Psychopharmacology 139, 376–382.

Tomie, A., Cunha, C., Mosakowski, E., Quartarolo, N., Pohorecky, L., Benjamin, D., 1998. Effects of ethanol on Pavlovian autoshaping in rats. Psychopharmacology 139, 154–159.

Tomie, A., Aguado, A.S., Pohorecky, L.A., Benjamin, D., 2000. Individual differences in Pavlovian autoshaping of lever pressing in rats predict stress-induced corticosterone release and mesolimbic levels of monoamines. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 65, 509–517.

Tomie, A., Di Poce, J., DeRenzo, C., Pohorecky, L.A., 2002. Autoshaping of ethanol drinking: an animal model of binge drinking. Alcohol Alcohol 37, 138–146.

Tomie, A., Silberman, Y.,Williams, K., Pohorecky, L.A., 2002. Pavlovian autoshaping procedures increase plasma corticosterone levels in rats. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 72, 507–513.

Tomie, A., Sparta, D.R., Silberman, Y., Interlandi, J., Mynko, A., Patterson-Buckendahl, P., Pohorecky, L.A., 2002. Pairings of ethanol sipper with food induces Pavlovian autoshaping in rats: evidence of long-term retention and effects of sipper duration. Alcohol Alcohol. 37, 547–554.

Tomie, A., Di Poce, J., Aguado, A., Janes, A., Benjamin, D., Pohorecky, L., 2003. Effects of autoshaping procedures on 3H-8-OH-DPAT-labeled 5-HT-sub(1a) binding and I-125-LSD-labeled 5-HT-sub(2a) binding in rat brain. Brain Res. 975, 167–178.

Tomie, A., Wong, K., Apor, K., Patterson-Buckendahl, P., Pohorecky, L.A., 2003. Autoshaping of ethanol drinking in rats: effects of ethanol concentration and trial spacing. Alcohol 31, 125–135.

Tomie, A., Kuo, T., Apor, K.R., Salomon, K.E., Pohorecky, L.A., 2004a. Autoshaping induces ethanol drinking in nondeprived rats: evidence of long-term retention but no induction of ethanol preference. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 77, 797–804.

Tomie, A., Tirado, A.D., Yu, L., Pohorecky, L.A., 2004. Pavlovian autoshaping procedures increase plasma corticosterone and levels of norepinephrine and serotonin in prefrontal cortex in rats. Behav. Brain Res. 153, 97–105.

Tomie, A., Wong, L., Pohorecky, L.A., 2004. Autoshaping of chlordiazepoxide drinking in non-deprived rats. Behav. Brain Res. 157, 273–281.

Tomie, A., Gittleman, J., Dranoff, E., Pohorecky, L.A., 2005. Social interactionopportunity and intermittentpresentationsof ethanol sipper tube induce ethanol drinking in rats. Alcohol 35, 43–55.

Tomie, A., Mohamed, W.M., Pohorecky, L.A., 2005. Effects of age on Pavlovian autoshaping of ethanol drinking in non-deprived rats. Int. J. Comp. Psychol. 18, 167–177.

Tomie, A., Hosszu, R., Rosenberg, R.H., Gittleman, J., Patterson-Buckendahl, P., Pohorecky, L.A., 2006. An inter-gender effect on ethanol drinking in rats: proximal

females increase ethanol drinking in males. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 83, 307–313.

Tomie, A., Miller, W.C., Dranoff, E., Pohorecky, L.A., 2006. Intermittent presentations of ethanol sipper tube induce ethanol drinking in rats. Alcohol Alcohol 41, 225–230.

Trafton, C.L., Marquez, P.R., 1971. Effects of septal area and cingulate cortex lesions on opiate addiction behavior in rats. J. Comp. Physiol. Psychol 75, 277–285.

Uslaner, J.M., Acerbo, M.J., Jones, S.A., Robinson, T.E., 2006. The attribution of incentive salience to a stimulus that signals an intravenous injection of cocaine. Behav. Brain Res. 169, 320–324.

Vezina, P., Queen, A.L., 2000. Induction of locomotor sensitization by amphetamine requires the activation of NMDA receptors in the rat ventral tegmental area. Psychopharmacology 151, 184–191.

Vezina, P., Stewart, J., 1990. Amphetamine administered to the ventral tegmental area but not to the nucleus accumbens sensitizes rats to systemic morphine: lack of conditioned effects. Brain Res. 516, 99–106.

Volkow, N.D., Fowler, S.J., 2000. Addiction, a disease of compulsion and drive: involvement of the orbitofrontal cortex. Cereb. Cortex 10, 318–325.

Volkow, N.D.,Wang, G.J., Fowler, J.S., Thanos, P.P., Logan, J., Garley, S.J., Gifford, A., Ding, Y.S., Wong, C., Pappas, N., 2002. Brain DA (2) receptors predict reinforcing effects of stimulants in humans: replication study. Synapse 46, 79–82.

Weiss, F., Hurd, Y.L., Ungerstedt, U., Markou, A., Plotsky, P.M., Koob, G.F., 1992. Neurochemical correlates of cocaine and ethanol self-administration. Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 654, 220–241.

Weiss, S.J., Kearns, D.N., Cohn, S.I., Panlilio, L.V., Schindler, C.W., 2003. Stimulus control of cocaine self-administration. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 79, 111–135.

Wikler, A., 1967. Conditioning processes in opiate addiction and relapse. J. Hillside Hosp. 16, 141–167.

Wikler, A., 1973. Requirements for extinction of relapse-facilitating variables and for rehabilitation in a narcotic-antagonist treatment program. In: Braude, M.C., Harris, L.S., May, E.L., Smith, J.P., Villareal, J.E. (Eds.), Narcotic Antagonists: Advances in Biochemical Psychopharmacology, 8. Raven Press, New York, pp. 399–414.

Williams, D.R., Williams, H., 1969. Automaintenance in the pigeon: sustained pecking despite contingent non-reinforcement. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 12, 511–520.

Winstanley, C.A., Baunez, C., Theobald, D.E.H., Robbins, T.W., 2005. Lesions to the subthalamic nucleus decrease impulsive choice but impair autoshaping in rats: the importance of the basal ganglia in Pavlovian conditioning and impulse control. Eur. J. Neurosci. 21, 2107–3116.

Winstanley, C.A., Dalley, J.W., Theobald, D.E.H., Robbins, T.W., 2004. Fractionating impulsivity: contrasting effects of central 5-HT depletion on different measures of impulsive behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology 29, 1331–1343.

Wise, R.A., Bozarth, M.A., 1985. Brain mechanisms of drug reward and euphoria. Psychiatric Med. 3, 445–460.

Wise, R.A., Bozarth, M.A., 1987. A psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction. Psychol. Rev. 94, 469–492.

Wise, R.A., Rompre, P.P., 1989. Brain dopamine and reward. Ann. Rev. Psychol. 40, 191–225.

Wood, D.A., Rebec, G.V., 2004. Dissociation of core and shell single-unit activity in the nucleus accumbens in free-choice novelty. Behav. Brain Res. 152, 59–66.

Yang, Y., Zheng, X., Wang, Y., Cao, J., Dong, Z., Cai, J., Sui, N., Xu, L., 2004. Stress enables synaptic depression in CA1 synapses by acute and chronic morphine: possible mechanisms for corticosterone on opiate addiction. J. Neurosci. 24, 2412–2420.

Yoshioka, M., Matsumoto, M., Togashi, H., Saito, H., 1995. Effects of conditioned fear stress on 5-HT release in the rat prefrontal cortex. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 51, 515–519.

135B R A I N R E S E A R C H R E V I E W S 5 8 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 1 2 1 – 1 3 5

Zack, M., Vogel-Sprott, M., 1995. Behavioral tolerance and sensitization to alcohol in humans: The contribution of learning. Exp. Clin. Psychopharmacol. 4, 396–401.

Zahm, D.S., 2000. An integrative neuroanatomical perspective on somesubcortical substratesofadaptive respondingwithemphasis on the nucleus accumbens. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 24, 85–105.

Zahm, D.S., Brog, J.S., 1992. Commentary on the significance of the core-shell boundary in the rat nucleus accumbens. Neurosci. 50, 751–767.

Zavala, A.R., Nazarian, A., Crawford, C.A., McDougall, S.A., 2000. Cocaine-induced behavioral sensitization in the young rat. Psychopharmacology 151, 291–298.

Zhang, X.Y., Kosten, T.A., 2005. Prozosin, an alpha-1Adrenergic antagonist, reduces cocaine-induced reinstatement of drug-seeking. Biol. Psychiatry 57, 1202–1204.

Zito, K.A., Vickers, G., Roberts, D.C., 1985. Disruption of cocaine and heroin self-administration following kainic acid lesions of the nucleus accumbens. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 23, 1029–1036.

Zuckerman, M., 1993. Sensation seeking and impulsivity: a marriage of traits made in biology? In: McCown,W.G., Johnson, J.L., Shure, M.B. (Eds.), The Impulsive Client: Theory, Research, and Treatment. American Psychological Association, Washington, DC, pp. 71–91.