Animal Models of Hallucinations Observed Through the Modern Lens

T. W. Robbins

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/schbul/sbw134

2017-01-01

Schizophrenia Bulletin

Abstract:The review by Waters and Fernyhough1 makes it clear that there is nothing especially distinctive about hallucinations in schizophrenia, not even to the extent of hallucinations in the auditory modality being more prevalent than in the visual one or hallucinations in schizophrenia having a greater preponderance of angry, critical voices. Hallucinations may occur both in people without mental disturbances and also as a consequence of many different pathologies including tinnitus and Parkinson’s disease and other neuropsychiatric disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder. This conclusion is consistent with a Research Domain Criteria (RDoc) approach to psychiatric nosology, as hallucinations are evidently trans-diagnostic with respect to the categorical diagnosis of schizophrenia or psychosis (see also the associated Commentary by Judith Ford2). What does this mean for animal models of hallucinations and, more indirectly, for understanding neurobiological mechanisms underlying hallucinations? Is the task of modeling hallucinatory behavior in animals any more revealing or useful than it was some 50 years ago when there was a major drive to understand the effects of hallucinogenic drugs acting at serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamine [5-HT]) receptors, such as lysergic acid diethylamide?3This commentary will endeavor to address these issues in the context of recent neuroscientific advances. Most definitions of hallucinations generally stress the uncoupling of subjective responses to external input. Such dissociations, which imply a loss of stimulus control or attention to input, are complementary in some ways to those of other disorders, such as obsessive-compulsive disorder, where there is a loss of experienced response control or attention to output. The obvious fact that hallucinations in humans are generally defined in terms of subjective verbal report immediately appears to impose difficulties for animal studies, as also for other disorders such as depression. However, to adopt a skeptical stance, the inference of hallucinations in humans often itself depends on less than reliable subjective reports rather than directly measurable overt behavior, whereas it is often possible to infer some correlate of subjective processing in experimental animals from their overt behavior. In other words, it may be feasible to bridge what initially seems to be an impossibly wide gap between animal and human sensory experience, especially if a neuroscientific approach is adopted to make functional links via the strategy of triangulation of common mechanisms. Changes in overt behavior in animals in the apparent absence of changes in sensory input are not in general sufficiently convincing as evidence of hallucinations because the behavior could simply be generated spontaneously. For example, limb flicks in cats4 or head twitches5 or startle6 in rodents or checking behaviors in monkeys7 caused by drugs such as 5-HT2A or dopamine receptor agonists could simply arise from forms of motor disinhibition in descending output pathways. The fact that such simple behaviors are produced by drugs known to be hallucinogenic in humans and are predictive of hallucinogenic potency in humans is certainly relevant, although given that 5-HT receptors are so widely dispersed in brain regions specialized for sensory, associative, and motor functions, this makes the correlations less compelling. But the occurrence of entire coherent sequences of apparently goal-directed behavior occurring in the absence of sensory support or the goal itself makes the inference of hallucination much more convincing. For example, the influential model of amphetamine psychosis arising from chronic administration of amphetamine produces not only repetitive stereotyped movements and a progressive fragmentation of behavior in rats,8 cats,9 and nonhuman primates10 but some examples of monkeys apparently attending to imaginary stimuli in space, retrieving the stimuli with a grasp, and then bringing the “object” to the COMMENTARY