Differential involvement of prefrontal cortex, striatum, and hippocampus in DRL performance in mice
Introduction
Identifying neural processes underlying time estimation is the focus of an active research community in cognitive neuroscience. Behavioral paradigms to assess timing processes and functions exist in the form of interval timing or peak procedure. In the simplest version of these tasks, each trial begins with the onset of a signal. The animal is free to respond at any time during the signal, but only the first response after a fixed delay is reinforced (discrete trial fixed-interval) (Church, 1984, Roberts, 1981). This and other similar tasks have been used to examine the critical roles played by the cortico-striatal pathway in time-regulated behaviors and time processing Review in Hinton and Meck, 2004, Lewis and Miall, 2006. The prefrontal cortex is considered to be important because of its apparent role in working memory and attention (Posner & Dehaene, 1994), while the striatum and dopaminergic system are thought to play a role of an internal clock.
Another procedure, termed “differential rate of low responding” schedule (DRL), presents a difference in that animal is required to withhold its responses until an imposed delay has passed, and any premature responses emitted before the time limit reset the delay. In this more “stringent” procedure, the performance and correct execution of the task might be strongly influenced by the capacity for behavioral inhibition, in addition to that for time estimation. A long-standing literature associates the integrity of the hippocampus and central cholinergic systems with DRL performance.
While a consensus exists that hippocampal lesions (Deacon, Reisel, Perry, & Rawlins, 2005; Sinden, Rawlins, Gray, & Jarrard, 1986), cholinergic dysfunctioning (Soffie & Lejeune, 1992), glutamatergic antagonists or other LTP blocking agents (Sanger, 1992, Tonkiss et al., 1988; Horwood, Ripley, & Stephens, 2004; Riesel et al., 2005) or aging (Soffie & Lejeune, 1991), all interfere with DRL performance, studies investigating directly the role of striatal and frontal regions in DRL performance are rare and/or nonexistent, especially for mouse species. Given the known importance of the prefrontal-striatal circuitry for timing functions, we might expect dramatic effects of lesions in these areas on acquisition and performance of DRL. Here, we report dissociable effects of lesions of the prefrontal (prelimbic, infralimbic and anterior cingulate) cortex and of the striatum on DRL schedule performance. Only prefrontal lesions produced significant deficits in DRL whose pattern is qualitatively and quantitatively distinct from those of hippocampal-lesioned mice.
Section snippets
Subjects
Subjects were 33 male mice of the C57Bl/6 J1Co strain (5–6 months old), obtained from Iffa/Credo (Lyon, France). Mice were housed 4–5 per cage during behavioral experiments, except during recovery from surgery, when they were housed individually for safe wound healing. They underwent a progressive water restriction regimen starting 3–4 days prior to the experiments, wherein they had limited access to water (30 min – 1 h per day). They were housed in a climate-controlled animal room (21–23 °C),
Histology
Histological analysis led to the rejection of one mouse from each of the PFC and HIP groups, due to an insufficient extent of lesions. The damage to the dorsal and ventral CA1 and CA3 regions of the hippocampus was nearly complete in the totality of HIP mice included in behavioral analyses, while in some animals the innermost portion of the DG was spared throughout the anterior–posterior extent of the hippocampus. Fig. 1 shows a representative case of HIP (A, B), PFC (D) and STR (E) lesions.
Discussion and conclusion
Our data confirm the well-established effects of hippocampal lesions in rats and in mice, and add new insight into the effects of prefrontal and striatal lesions on DRL performance. While the prefrontal cortex and striatum are both thought to be important for time estimation and processing, only prefrontal lesions resulted in performance deficits in DRL schedule. More precisely, while prefrontal lesions produced a quite normal response distribution at the early stage of test phase, their peak
Acknowledgments
Authors wish to thank to Roula Moussa, Sebastien Delcasso for behavioral test, and Angelique Faugere and Laurence Decorte for histology.
The work was supported by Alzheimer’s association, American Health Assistance Foundation, ACI: Integrative and Computational Neuroscience, France Alzheimer, Huntington’s disease society of America and Jerome Lejeune.
References (30)
Attentional processes and learning and memory in rats: The prefrontal cortex and hippocampus compared
Progress in Brain Research
(2000)- et al.
Visuo-spatial sequential learning in a new operant chamber in mice
Behavioural Brain Research
(2007) - et al.
Role of the prefrontal cortex of the rat in learning and decision making: Effects of transient inactivation
Progress in Brain Research
(2000) - et al.
Hippocampal scrapie infection impairs operant DRL performance in mice
Behavioural Brain Research
(2005) - et al.
A new task for spatial memory for mice in an operant chamber
Behavioural Brain Research
(2007) - et al.
Neurotoxic lesions of ventrolateral but not anteromedial neostriatum in rats impair differential reinforcement of low rates (DRL) performance
Behavioural Brain Research
(1982) - et al.
Frontal–striatal circuitry activated by human peak-interval timing in the supra-seconds range
Brain Research Cognitive Brain Research
(2004) - et al.
Evidence for disrupted NMDA receptor function in tissue plasminogen activator knockout mice
Behavioural Brain Research
(2004) Functions of the prefrontal cortex in the rat: A comparative review
Brain Research Review
(1984)- et al.
Remembering the time: A continuous clock
Trends in Cognitive Sciences
(2006)
Frontal–striatal control of behavioral inhibition in the rat
Brain Research
Anatomical specificity within rat striatum for the dopaminergic modulation of DRL responding and activity
Brain Research
Attentional networks
Trends in Neurosciences
Acquisition and long-term retention of a two-lever DRL schedule: Comparison between mature and aged rats
Neurobiology of Aging
Implicit learning in a serial choice visual discrimination task in the operant 9-hole box by intact and striatal lesioned mice
Behavioural Brain Research
Cited by (28)
Neural basis of operant behaviors maintained on the differential-reinforcement-of-low-rate (DRL) schedule in rodents
2022, Brain Research BulletinThe effects of early life stress on impulsivity
2022, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsCitation Excerpt :Functional disconnection of the mPFC-NAc pathway also increases impulsive actions, an effect attributed to disrupting this “top-down” control over behavior (Christakou et al., 2004). One caveat with mPFC lesion studies is that sometimes they may include the ACC (Cho and Jeantet, 2010; Pezze et al., 2009). The ACC itself is involved in many different processes related to impulsivity such as error detection, cognitive control, and response selection (Bryden et al., 2011; Bussey et al., 1997; Newman et al., 2015).
Neurobiological changes in striatal glutamate are associated with trait impulsivity of differential reinforcement of low-rate-response behavior in male rats
2021, Neurobiology of Learning and MemoryPrefrontal regulation of behavioural control: Evidence from learning theory and translational approaches in rodents
2020, Neuroscience and Biobehavioral ReviewsThe hippocampus contributes to temporal duration memory in the context of event sequences: A cross-species perspective
2020, NeuropsychologiaCitation Excerpt :Interestingly, impairments in the timing component of the distribution is not observed if the scheduled duration is signalled with a cue (Cho and Jeantet, 2010; Fletcher, 1995). Thus, the dominant role of the HPC in the DRL task is more likely to be in the temporal control of behaviour, and not behavioural inhibition (Braggio and Ellen, 1976; Cho and Jeantet, 2010; Rawlins et al., 1983). One line of query regarding findings from DRL as well as PI research is whether the effects of hippocampal damage reflect a role for this structure in timing or memory for time.