Disrupted and Undisruptable Latent Inhibition following Shell and Core Lesions
I. Weiner,G. Gal,J. Feldon
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1999.tb09310.x
IF: 6.499
1999-06-01
Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences
Abstract:In the latent inhibition (LI) paradigm, subjects are repeatedly presented in the first stage (preexposure) with a stimulus, which is paired with a reinforcement in the second stage (conditioning). LI consists of retarded conditioning to the preexposed stimulus; in other words, subjects are under the control of the previous stimulus–no event contingency rather than the changed, stimulus-reinforcement, contingency. LI is disrupted in amphetamine-treated rats and humans, normal humans with high schizotypy scores, and in some subsets of schizophrenic patients. Consequently, LI disruption has received an increasing interest as an animal model of cognitive deficits in schizophrenia. Furthermore, consistent with the central role of mesolimbic dopamine and temporal lobe pathology in schizophrenia, lesion and intracerebral injections studies in the rat have pointed to the involvement of the hippocampus/entorhinal cortex and the nucleus accumbens (NAC) in LI. Based on the latter, the switching model of LI proposed that (1) the mechanism responsible for LI disruption, that is, switching to respond according to the stimulus-reinforcement contingency, resides in the NAC; and (2) LI, that is, continuing to respond according to the stimulus–no event contingency, is mediated by signals from the hippocampal formation that inhibit the switching mechanism of the NAC (for reviews, see refs. 2, 3). Because the NAC is divided into shell and core subregions, which are cytoarchitecturally, physiologically, pharmacologically, and functionally distinct (e.g., ref. 5), we tested this hypothesis using lesions to these two subregions.4 Our results showed that electrolytic lesions to the shell abolished LI, whereas core lesions left LI intact. Although this could be interpreted as showing that the core is not involved in LI, we interpreted these outcomes differently: rats with intact core (shell-lesioned) switched to respond according to the stimulus-reinforcement contingency (disrupted LI). Consequently, we proposed that the switching mechanism of the NAC resides in the core and that the switching mechanism is inhibited by the shell. This implies that it should be impossible to disrupt LI in rats with a core lesion and leads to the counterintuitive prediction that a lesion that destroyed both shell and core would leave LI intact. This prediction was tested here by comparing LI in rats sustaining an electrolytic shell lesion and a combined shell–core lesion.