 |
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
|
|||||
Previous Article | Next Article
Apparatus and materials The monkeys were trained in an automated apparatus consisting of an IBM computer connected to a color monitor fitted with a touch-sensitive screen (Microtouch Systems, Woburn, MA), an automated pellet dispenser (BRS/LVE, Laurel, MD), and a loudspeaker.
Volume 17, Number 15, Issue of August 1, 1997 pp. 6011-6020
Copyright ©1997 Society for NeuroscienceExcitotoxic Lesions of the Amygdala Fail to Produce Impairment in Visual Learning for Auditory Secondary Reinforcement But Interfere with Reinforcer Devaluation Effects in Rhesus Monkeys
Ludi e Málková1,
David Gaffan2, and Elisabeth A. Murray1 1 Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, Bethesda, Maryland 20892, and 2 Department of Experimental Psychology, Oxford University, Oxford OX1 3UD, England, United Kingdom
ABSTRACT
Aspiration lesions of the amygdala were found previously to produce a severe impairment in visual discrimination learning for auditory secondary reinforcement in rhesus monkeys (Gaffan and Harrison, 1987
Key words: amygdala; ibotenic acid; visual discrimination; auditory; secondary reinforcement; reinforcer devaluation; rhesus monkey). To determine whether excitotoxic amygdala lesions would also produce this effect, we trained four naive rhesus monkeys on the same task. The monkeys were required to learn 40 new visual discrimination problems per session in a situation in which visual choices were guided by an auditory secondary reinforcer that had been previously associated with food reward. Bilateral excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala had no effect on the rate of learning visual discrimination problems for auditory secondary reinforcement. We also tested the amygdalectomized monkeys on a reinforcer devaluation task and compared their performance with a group of three normal monkeys. The monkeys first learned to discriminate 60 pairs of objects, baited with two different food rewards. Each of the food rewards was then devalued by selective satiation in two separate experimental sessions. Normal controls tended to avoid displacing objects that covered the devalued food to a significantly greater degree than did the amygdalectomized monkeys, indicating that the excitotoxic amygdala damage interfered with reinforcer devaluation effects. Our results are consistent with the idea that the amygdala is necessary for learning the association between stimuli and the value of particular food rewards; however, the amygdala is not necessary for maintaining the value of secondary reinforcers, once they have been learned.
INTRODUCTION
Visual discrimination learning for food reward is a complex task, one usually thought to tax stimulus-reward association. Although the amygdala is clearly implicated in certain aspects of visual discrimination learning for food reward in monkeys, the effects of bilateral amygdala removals on visual discrimination learning in a manual test apparatus can be quite variable, ranging from no impairment (Schwartzbaum, 1965
To analyze the manner in which the amygdala contributed to visual discrimination learning, Gaffan and Harrison (1987)
Recent studies have demonstrated that selective amygdala lesions can yield different behavioral effects than aspiration lesions of the amygdala in monkeys (O'Boyle et al., 1993; Málková and Murray, 1996
To test whether the finding of Gaffan and Harrison (1987)
EXPERIMENT 1
Materials and Methods
Subjects Four experimentally naive rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta), one female and three males, were used. They weighed 3.5-5.0 kg at the beginning of the study, were housed individually in rooms with automatically regulated lighting (12 hr light/dark cycle), and were maintained on primate chow (no. 5038, PMI Feeds, St. Louis, MO) supplemented with fresh fruit. Water was always available in the home cage.
A large set of visual stimuli was used. Each stimulus consisted of two different ASCII characters of two different colors and two different sizes superimposed. These stimuli were created by an algorithm described previously (Murray et al., 1993 Preoperative testing The monkeys were trained in a series of stages, described below, with the aim of having them learn to solve visual discrimination problems on the basis of auditory secondary reinforcement.
For each test session, the monkey was seated in a primate chair inside a testing cubicle. The monkey's head was ~230 mm from the monitor, and the monkey's arms were free to reach toward any part of the screen. A visual stimulus could appear in one of two positions on the monitor, either on the left or the right side of the screen, 90 mm from the center. The auditory stimuli were played through a loudspeaker that was located on the floor of the cubicle below the center of the monitor. A food cup, which received rewards through a tube connected to the pellet dispenser, was located directly below the center of the monitor. The food rewards were banana-flavored pellets (190 mg) (Noyes, Lancaster, NH). Infrared light sources and an infrared sensitive closed-circuit television camera enabled the monkey to be observed by the experimenter during the test sessions.
Pretraining. The preliminary training was performed in two stages. In the first stage, the monkey learned to touch a stimulus that appeared on the monitor screen to receive a reward. A single stimulus appeared on either the left or the right side of the monitor screen. If the monkey touched the stimulus, the auditory secondary reinforcer was presented together with the visual stimulus for 1 sec, and both were then terminated simultaneously. Two banana pellets were delivered. If the monkey did not touch the stimulus within 30 sec, then the auditory reinforcer was presented at the end of the 30 sec interval, the visual and the auditory stimuli were terminated simultaneously, and two pellets were delivered. Thirty novel stimuli were randomly presented based on a 2 min variable interval. The criterion for completion of this stage was 2 consecutive d with one or more responses.
The main purpose of the second stage of pretraining was to familiarize the monkey with the multiple responses that would be required for reward delivery in the main task. As in the first stage, a single visual stimulus appeared on either the left or the right side of the monitor screen. Now, however, reward delivery was contingent on the monkey's response. When the monkey touched the visual stimulus, the auditory secondary reinforcer was presented for 1 sec, and then both the auditory and visual stimuli were immediately terminated. At first, only a single touch to the visual stimulus led to delivery of food reward. In later sessions, however, two to four touches, on consecutive trials, were required to obtain food reward. In the final step, the monkey was required to touch the visual stimulus four times consecutively, one touch per trial, to obtain the two-pellet reward. Forty different "problems" were presented in each session. The interval between presentations of different problems was 13 sec, and the interval between trial presentations within problems was 3.5 sec.
Main task. In the main task, each monkey was required to solve new visual discrimination problems when the only feedback provided was the occurrence of the auditory secondary reinforcer or nonreinforcer. On each trial, two visual stimuli were presented simultaneously on the screen, one arbitrarily designated positive, the other negative. If the monkey touched the positive stimulus, the auditory reinforcer was presented together with both the visual discriminanda for 1 sec, and all stimuli were terminated simultaneously. If the monkey touched the negative stimulus, the auditory nonreinforcer was presented together with both the visual discriminanda for 1 sec, and again, all terminated simultaneously. The same problem was presented over and over again, with left and right positions of the stimuli following a random order, until the monkey solved or lost the problem. At the final stage of the task, a problem was either solved or lost if either the positive or the negative stimulus was chosen on four consecutive trials, respectively. Another problem, composed of two novel stimuli, was then presented. When a problem was solved, the food reward was delivered; when a problem was lost, no food was delivered. Either one of these two possibilities terminated the problem. Thus the number of trials per problem was not fixed but was always at least four, enabling learning curves to be drawn for trials 1-4. As in the pretraining phase, the intertrial interval between problems was 13 sec, and the interval between trials within a problem was 3.5 sec. Postoperative testing Sixteen to eighteen days after surgery, postoperative testing was initiated. Each monkey received 20 daily sessions of the main task, which were administered in the same way as before surgery. Surgery Before surgery each monkey was anesthetized, placed in a specially constructed nonferrous stereotaxic frame, and given a brain scan with the magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) technique. The MRI scans were used to obtain measurements of the amygdala relative to both the interaural plane (earbars) and the midline, which were also visible on the scan (Saunders et al., 1991
The criterion for the main task was to finish a session and to solve 90% or more of the problems 3 d in a row. On reaching this criterion, each monkey was given 20 daily sessions, which served as the preoperative baseline. Histology On completion of the experiment, the monkeys were given an overdose of barbiturates (sodium pentobarbital, 100 mg/kg, i.p.) and were perfused through the heart with normal saline followed by aldehyde fixatives. The brains were removed, photographed, and frozen. Tissue was sectioned at 50 µm on a freezing microtome in the coronal plane. Every fifth section was mounted, defatted, stained with thionin, and coverslipped.
At the time of surgery, each monkey was anesthetized and placed in the stereotaxic frame. The anesthesia was induced with ketamine hydrochloride (10 mg/kg) and maintained under isoflurane gas (1.0-2.0%, v/v, to effect) for the duration of the surgery, which was performed under aseptic conditions. Monkeys received an intravenous drip solution of isotonic fluids, and heart rate, respiration rate, blood pressure, expired CO2, and body temperature were monitored throughout the procedure. A bone flap was made in the appropriate portion of the cranium, and small slits were cut in the dura to allow the needle of a 10 µl Hamilton syringe, held in a Kopf electrode manipulator (David Kopf Instruments, Tujunga, CA), to be lowered to the proper coordinates. The monkeys received 16-27 injections per hemisphere via a 30 gauge needle. A total of 1 µl of ibotenic acid (10-15 mg/ml) was injected at each site. To allow diffusion of the ibotenic acid into the extracellular space, and to minimize mechanical damage to the tissue, all injections were made at a rate of 0.2 µl/min. After the injections were completed, the scalp was closed in anatomical layers. All monkeys received a pre- and postoperative treatment regimen consisting of dexamethasone sodium phosphate (0.4 mg/kg) and Di-Trim (0.1 ml/kg, 24% w/v solution, i.m.) (Syntex Animal Health, West Des Moines, IA) for 1 d before surgery and 1 week after surgery to reduce swelling and to prevent infection, respectively. They also received acetaminophen (40 mg) for 3 d after surgery for relief of pain.
The extent of damage to the amygdala in each monkey is indicated in Table 1 and Figure 1. Representative photomicrographs of the lesion are shown in Figures 2 and 3. The damage was essentially complete in monkeys A3 and A4. In the two remaining monkeys, the damage was nearly complete on either the left (A1) or the right (A2), with less substantial damage (mean = 52%) to the other side.
Table 1. Percent damage
Subject Amygdala Entorhinal cortex Perirhinal cortex L R Mean L R Mean L R Mean A1 92 50 71 4 0 2 2 0 1 A2 54 93 74 0 1 0 0 0 0 A3 100 96 98 42 8 25 6 1 4 A4 93 97 95 3 5 4 0 0 0 Numerals indicate percent damage of left (L), right (R), and total (mean) volume for each of three structures: amygdala, entorhinal cortex, and perirhinal cortex. A1-A4 are monkeys with excitotoxic amygdala lesions. 
Fig. 1. Coronal sections showing the intended lesion (middle column) and the actual extent of damage in four monkeys, A1 and A4 (left column) and A2 and A3 (right column), that received injections of ibotenic acid into the amygdala. Numerals indicate the distance in millimeters from the interaural plane.
[View Larger Version of this Image (61K GIF file)]
Fig. 2. Photomicrographs of Nissl-stained coronal sections approximately +16 mm from the interaural plane. A, Section through the left amygdala in monkey A4. B, Section through the left amygdala in an intact monkey. Note virtually complete cell loss in the amygdala of the operated monkey (A), with relative preservation of the underlying entorhinal cortex.
[View Larger Version of this Image (118K GIF file)]
Fig. 3. Photomicrographs of Nissl-stained coronal sections through the amygdala lesion in monkey A4. Top, middle, and bottom sections represent the left and right amygdala at approximately +18, +16, and +14 mm from the interaural plane, respectively.
[View Larger Version of this Image (108K GIF file)]
As for unintended damage, all monkeys sustained slight cell loss in the entorhinal cortex, two monkeys unilaterally (A1 and A2; the damage in A2 appeared only at level +17 and is not shown in Fig. 3) and two bilaterally (A3 and A4). Even in the cases with bilateral involvement, however, the cell loss was restricted mainly to one hemisphere. Furthermore, all monkeys sustained slight cell loss to the portion of the basal nucleus of Meynert dorsally adjacent to the amygdala, two of them (A1 and A4) bilaterally and the other two (A2 and A3) unilaterally, with more cell loss on the right than on the left. In all cases, however, the cell loss was substantially less than in the cases with excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala reported by Murray et al. (1996) Results
Preoperative learning and performance Three of the four monkeys displayed little difficulty in learning the task. They required a mean of 42 sessions to complete pretraining and attain criterion on the main task. One monkey (A4) failed to attain criterion in approximately 100 sessions; however, because it scored well above chance levels and had attained a stable performance level, the last 15 sessions were considered the preoperative baseline for this monkey.
For monkeys A1, A2, and A3, the final preoperative within-problem learning curves were based on the last five preoperative sessions, i.e., a total of 200 new problems. For A4, the learning curve was based on the last 15 preoperative sessions (600 new problems). Average error rates for the final problems are presented in Table 2 and Figure 4.
Table 2. Percent error in learning visual discrimination problems for auditory secondary reinforcement
Preoperative learning trials Postoperative learning trials 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 A1 49.0 10.5 6.5 2.5 39.5 5.5 2.0 1.0 A2 46.5 15.5 11.5 8.5 39.0 24.0 15.0 10.5 A3 43.0 30.5 17.0 10.0 54.5 28.0 24.0 12.0 A4a 47.2 37.5 26.2 19.2 46.0 40.5 32.5 25.5 Mean 46.4 23.5 15.3 10.1 44.8 24.5 18.4 12.3 Numerals indicate the mean percent error obtained on trials 1-4 for problems learned in the last 5 of 20 sessions administered before surgery (preoperative learning) and the last 5 of 20 sessions administered after surgery (postoperative learning). A1-A4 are monkeys with excitotoxic amygdala lesions. a Did not reach criterion. Used mean score for last 15 sessions before operation. 
Fig. 4. Within-problem learning curves on visual discrimination for auditory secondary reinforcement (Experiment 1) before (PRE-OP) and after (POST-OP) excitotoxic amygdala lesions. Average percent error is shown for the first four trials of new problems (see Table 1).
[View Larger Version of this Image (13K GIF file)]
Postoperative performance Postoperative error rates are given in Table 2 and Figure 4. The effect of surgery was evaluated in a condition × trials (2 × 4) ANOVA with repeated measures. A significant effect of trials [F(Greenhouse-Geiser 1,4) = 32.64; p < 0.01] indicated an improvement in performance across the first four trials. The effect of condition [F(1,3) < 1; p > 0.05] was not significant, nor was the interaction of condition and trials [F(Greenhouse-Geiser 1,4) < 1; p > 0.05], indicating that there was no difference between preoperative and postoperative performance.
Comment
There was no effect of bilateral, excitotoxic amygdala lesions on the rate at which monkeys learned visual discriminations for auditory secondary reinforcement. Thus, the impairment seen by Gaffan and Harrison (1987)
To determine whether selective amygdala lesions would disrupt learning about food rewards, we tested our amygdalectomized monkeys on a reinforcer devaluation task and compared their performance with that of a group of normal monkeys.
EXPERIMENT 2
Hatfield et al. (1996)
We devised a reinforcer-devaluation procedure for monkeys that used operant conditioning methods to test whether the amygdala is essential for devaluation effects in monkeys as well as in rats. Our devaluation procedure was based on selective satiation, which represents a motivational manipulation (unconditioned) as compared with an associative manipulation (conditioned) used by Hatfield et al. (1996) Materials and Methods
Subjects All four monkeys from Experiment 1 were used. In addition, three normal male rhesus monkeys, controls in a separate experiment, served as unoperated controls. They weighed 7.10-9.30 kg at the beginning of the study. Before the present study, all three had been trained on visual delayed nonmatching-to-sample, and two of them (C1 and C2) had received additional training on visual object discriminations. The monkeys were housed and fed in the same manner as that described in Experiment 1. Apparatus and materials The monkeys were trained in a Wisconsin General Testing Apparatus located in a darkened room. The test compartment was illuminated with two 60 W incandescent bulbs, but the monkey's compartment was always unlit. Extraneous sound masking was provided by a white-noise generator. The test tray, which was located at the level of the floor of the monkey's transport cage, contained two food wells spaced 290 mm apart, center to center, on the midline of the tray. The wells were 38 mm in diameter and 6 mm deep. The stimuli were 120 junk objects that differed widely in shape, size, color, and texture. There were two different food rewards. One was a single "fruit snack," a chewy candy about 1 cm in size made from fruit juice (Fruit Snacks, Super Giant, Inc.), and the other was a half peanut. In a pilot experiment conducted with other monkeys, these two food rewards were found to be equally palatable. Testing procedure Stage 1. Visual discrimination learning. Monkeys were first trained to discriminate a set of 60 pairs of objects. For each pair, one object was arbitrarily designated positive (i.e., baited with a food reward) and the other negative (i.e., unbaited). On each trial, the two objects comprising a pair, one positive and one negative, were presented for choice, each overlying one of the two food wells on the test tray. Each pair of objects appeared in only one trial per session. Thus, each of the 60 pairs was presented once per session, yielding a total of 60 trials per day. Half of the positive objects were randomly assigned to be baited with a fruit snack (Food-1 objects), the other half with the peanut reward (Food-2 objects). The positive and negative objects within each pair, the food reward assignment, and the order of the pairs remained constant across sessions, but the left-right position of the positive objects in each pair followed a pseudorandom order. The intertrial interval was 20 sec. Criterion was set at a mean of 90% correct responses over 5 consecutive d (i.e., 270 correct responses out of 300).
Stage 2. Reinforcer devaluation. After they attained criterion on Stage 1, the monkeys' choices of objects were assessed in four critical test sessions, each performed on a separate day. In these sessions, only the positive objects were used; the negative objects were set aside to be used in the regular training sessions that intervened between critical test sessions (see below). Thirty pairs, each consisting of one Food-1 and one Food-2 object, were randomly generated before each critical test session. During critical sessions, both objects were baited with the appropriate food on all trials. Each of the pairs was presented once, yielding 30 trials per session. The monkeys were allowed to choose one of the objects in each pair and to obtain the reward. Our measure was the number of Food-1 and Food-2 objects chosen in each session. Two of the four critical test sessions were preceded by a selective satiation procedure, described below, one for each food. The other two were preceded by no satiation procedure and therefore served as the baseline. Between critical sessions, the monkeys were given one regular training session with the original set of 60 object discrimination problems presented for choice in the same manner as during original learning. In addition, at least 2 d of rest followed each session that had been preceded by the selective-satiation procedure. Critical sessions preceded by satiation occurred in one order (satiation for Food-1, followed by satiation for Food-2) for five monkeys (C2, C3, A1, A3, and A4), and in the reverse order for two monkeys (C1, A2). In addition, the critical sessions preceded by no satiation (baseline) were administered in two different orders: the first baseline session preceded the first selective satiation session and the second followed the second selective satiation session in four monkeys (C3, A1, A3, and A4), whereas both baseline sessions followed the second selective satiation session in the three remaining monkeys.
Selective satiation procedure. Approximately 24 hr after the last feeding, a food box measuring 8 × 10 × 7.5 cm and attached to the monkey's home cage was filled with 300 gm of peanuts (or 250 gm of fruit snacks) while the monkey was in its home cage. The monkey was allowed to eat the food without being directly observed for 30 min. Then the experimenter entered the room and checked the amount of food eaten. If the monkey had eaten most of the food, an additional 100 gm of peanuts (or 50 gm of fruit snacks) was added to the food box. Whether additional food was given or not, the experimenter started observing the monkey through a window from outside the animal housing room until the monkey refrained from taking food from the food box for 5 min. The test session was then initiated within ~10 min. For the baseline condition, the monkey was simply taken directly from its home cage to the test session without undergoing a selective satiation procedure. Results
Stage 1. Visual discrimination learning The three unoperated control monkeys required a mean of seven sessions and 142 errors to attain criterion. One of the four monkeys with amygdala lesions (A4) did not reach criterion within 20 sessions; however, its score of 87% correct responses over the last five sessions was considered sufficiently high to proceed to the next stage. The amygdalectomized monkeys, including A4, required a mean of 11 sessions and 169 errors to attain criterion. The two groups did not differ in their rate of learning the visual discrimination problems [Mann-Whitney U test; U(3,4) = 3.00, p > 0.05; U(3,4) = 4.00, p > 0.05, for the number of sessions and errors, respectively]. Stage 2. Reinforcer devaluation In the two baseline sessions (Table 3), a group × session ANOVA with repeated measures showed no difference between the two groups in their choices [F(1,5) < 1; p > 0.05]. In addition, the monkeys' choices of Food-1 versus Food-2 objects remained stable [F(1,5) < 1; p > 0.05] across the two sessions. Therefore, for the purpose of further analysis, each monkey's baseline was taken to be the mean score for the two sessions. The mean ratio of Food-1:Food-2 objects selected by the monkeys during the baseline sessions was 17:13 and 16:14 for control and operated monkeys, respectively. There was no significant overall preference for either Food-1 or Food-2 objects within either group [paired t test; t(2) < 1, p > 0.05; t(3) < 1, p > 0.05, respectively].
Table 3. Reinforcer devaluation by selective satiation
Baseline Mean Satiation DS1 DS2 Difference score 1 2 Food-1 Food-2 F1:F2 F1:F2 F1:F2 F1:F2 F1:F2 C1 23:7 20:10 21.5:8.5 10:20 29:1 11.5 7.5 19.0 C2 23:7 21:9 22.0:8.0 6:24 27:3 16.0 5.0 21.0 C3 5:25 10:20 7.5:22.5 1:29 22:8 6.5 14.5 21.0 A1 20:10 19:11 19.5:10.5 10:20 17:13 9.5 2.5
7.0 A2 12:18 16:14 14.0:16.0 11:19 13:17 3.0 2.0 A3 11:19 12:18 11.5:18.5 7:23 15:15 4.5 3.5 8.0 A4 20:10 21:9 20.5:9.5 16:14 24:6 4.5 3.5 8.0 Number of Food-1 (F1) and Food-2 (F2) objects chosen in critical sessions consisting of 30 trials. DS1 represents a difference score between the number of Food-1 objects chosen after Food-1 satiation and baseline; DS2 represents a difference score between number of Food-2 objects chosen after Food-2 satiation and baseline. Difference score is the sum of DS1 and DS2. C1-C3 are unoperated control monkeys; A1-A4 are monkeys with excitotoxic amygdala lesions.
The amount of food consumed during the selective satiation procedure was compared between groups. The unoperated controls consumed on average 110 gm of fruit snacks and 250 gm of peanuts, whereas the amygdalectomized monkeys consumed 140 gm and 140 gm, respectively. There was no significant difference between the groups on this measure [U(3,4) = 4.00, p > 0.05; U(3,4) = 11.0, p > 0.05, for fruit snacks and peanuts, respectively]. Furthermore, both groups spent about the same amount of time in the satiation procedure.
The difference between the number of Food-1 and Food-2 objects chosen in each of the two critical sessions that had been preceded by the selective satiation procedure versus the baseline condition was assessed for each monkey. A positive valence was used for changes in the expected direction. Difference scores from each of the two sessions were summed to obtain a total difference score (Table 3, Fig. 5). For example, monkey C2 chose a mean of 22 Food-1 and 8 Food-2 objects in the baseline condition, but only six Food-1 objects after the Food-1 satiation procedure, and only three Food-2 objects after the Food-2 satiation procedure. For C2, the final difference score, a measure of the effect of the selective satiation procedure, was [(22 
Fig. 5. Group mean difference scores, a measure of the effect on choices of objects of reinforcer devaluation (Experiment 2). CONTROL, Unoperated control monkeys (n = 3); AMYGDALA LESION, monkeys with selective, excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala (n = 4). Vertical lines represent the range of scores of individual monkeys.
[View Larger Version of this Image (17K GIF file)]
Comment
Excitotoxic amygdala lesions significantly attenuated the effects of reinforcer devaluation. Although the amygdalectomized monkeys did sustain some inadvertent damage to adjacent structures (e.g., basal forebrain, hippocampus), this damage was variable in extent and typically not bilaterally symmetrical. Thus, it seems highly unlikely that damage outside of the amygdala could account for our result. After being sated with one of the two available food rewards, normal monkeys tended to avoid displacing objects that covered the devalued food in favor of objects overlying the food that had not recently been eaten. By contrast, amygdalectomized monkeys showed little of this tendency. Instead, they displaced about the same number of objects overlying each of the two foods as they had in the baseline (control) sessions. Our results confirm previous findings (Hatfield et al., 1996
There are at least two aspects of the present procedure that are noteworthy. First, to avoid direct associations of the devalued food with a response being measured, critical trials in devaluation studies typically do not involve food reward. In our task, however, we used food rewards to bait all objects on the critical trials. Presumably, this procedure did not affect our ability to discern a devaluation effect, because each trial used a different pair of objects. That is, particular stimulus objects might be directly associated with a devalued food, but only after the objects had already been displaced, and this experience did not seem to affect other trials in the session.
Second, we were surprised by the stability of scores in the baseline sessions. Even though the monkeys received novel (and different) pairings of objects for the two baseline sessions, and even though the selection of objects was different across days, the ratio of Food-1:Food-2 objects chosen by individual monkeys was remarkably stable. Furthermore, some monkeys seemed to exhibit a "food preference," as evidenced by their tendency to select more of the objects that covered one food relative to the other (Table 3). For example, monkeys C1, C2, A1, and A4 consistently displaced more of the Food-1 objects when they were pitted against Food-2 objects. This phenomenon presumably reflects the different values of the different reinforcers, which operate through a process independent of the amygdala.
DISCUSSION
Experiment 1 showed that bilateral excitotoxic lesions of the amygdala have no effect on the rate at which monkeys learn visual discriminations for auditory secondary reinforcement. The possibility that the lesions were behaviorally ineffective is ruled out by the positive results of Experiment 2. There are at least two possible explanations, not necessarily mutually exclusive, of the contrasting effects of aspiration and excitotoxic amygdala lesions. First, the impairments observed by Gaffan and Harrison (1987)
Second, it is possible that the severe effect of amygdala aspiration on this type of task (Gaffan and Harrison, 1987
In Experiment 2, we found that excitotoxic amygdala lesions did not affect learning of visual object discriminations for primary reinforcement. The same excitotoxic lesions, however, had a profound effect on reinforcer devaluation. Similarly, the results of Hatfield et al. (1996)
Although the amygdala appears to be necessary for learning the association between stimuli and the value of primary reinforcers (as in Experiment 2), the results of Experiment 1 demonstrate that the amygdala is not necessary for maintaining the value of secondary reinforcers, once they have been learned. Studies performed with rats suggest that damage to the basolateral amygdala disrupts learning when new secondary reinforcement (Cador et al., 1989
FOOTNOTES
Received Feb. 4, 1997; revised April 30, 1997; accepted May 22, 1997.
This research was supported by the Human Frontiers Scientific Program Organization (E.A.M.) and the National Institute of Mental Health Intramural Research Program. We thank P. Holland and M. Mishkin for valuable comments on an earlier version of this manuscript, W. Hadfield for technical assistance, J. N. Sewell for help with histological processing of the tissue, and the staff of the In Vivo Nuclear Magnetic Resonance Research Center for performing the MRI scans. We thank the United Kingdom Medical Research Council's Interdisciplinary Research Centre at Oxford University for a travel grant.
Correspondence should be addressed to Dr. Elisabeth A. Murray, Laboratory of Neuropsychology, National Institute of Mental Health, National Institutes of Health, Building 49, Room 1B80, Bethesda, MD 20892.
REFERENCES
- Amaral DG, Insausti R, Cowan WM (1983) Evidence for a direct projection from the superior temporal gyrus to the entorhinal cortex in the monkey. Brain Res 275:263-277[Web of Science][Medline].
- Burns LH, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ (1993) Differential effects of excitotoxic lesions of the basolateral amygdala, ventral subiculum and medial prefrontal cortex on responding with conditioned reinforcement and locomotor activity potentiated by intra-accumbens infusion of D-amphetamine. Behav Brain Res 55:176-183.
- Cador M, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ (1989) Involvement of the amygdala in stimulus-reward associations: interaction with the ventral striatum. Neuroscience 30:77-86[Web of Science][Medline].
- Dunn LT, Everitt BJ (1988) Double dissociations of the effects of amygdala and insular cortex lesions on conditioned taste aversion, passive avoidance, and neophobia in the rat using the excitotoxin ibotenic acid. Behav Neurosci 102:3-23[Web of Science][Medline].
- Everitt BJ, Robbins TW (1992) Amygdala-ventral striatal interactions and reward-related processes. In: The amygdala: neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction (Aggleton JP, ed), pp 401-429. New York: Wiley.
- Everitt BJ, Morris KA, O'Brien A, Robbins TW (1991) The basolateral amygdala-ventral striatal system and conditioned place preference: further evidence of limbic-striatal interactions underlying reward-related processes. Neuroscience 42:1-18[Web of Science][Medline].
- Gaffan D (1994) Role of the amygdala in picture discrimination learning with 24 hr intertrial intervals. Exp Brain Res 99:411-422[Web of Science][Medline].
- Gaffan D, Harrison S (1987) Amygdalectomy and disconnection in visual learning for auditory secondary reinforcement by monkeys. J Neurosci 7:2285-2292[Abstract].
- Gaffan D, Harrison S (1991) Auditory-visual associations, hemispheric specialization and temporal-frontal interaction in the rhesus monkey. Brain 114:2133-2144
[Abstract/Free Full Text] .- Gaffan D, Murray EA (1990) Amygdalar interaction with the mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus and the ventromedial prefrontal cortex in stimulus-reward associative learning in the monkey. J Neurosci 10:3479-3493[Abstract].
- Gaffan EA, Gaffan D, Harrison S (1988) Disconnection of the amygdala from visual association cortex impairs visual reward-association learning in monkeys. J Neurosci 8:3144-3150[Abstract].
- Gallagher M, Holland PC (1994) The amygdala complex: multiple roles in associative learning and attention. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 91:11771-11776
[Abstract/Free Full Text] .- Goulet S, Dore FY, Murray EA (1996) Aspiration lesions of the amygdala disrupt rhinal cortical efferents to the mediodorsal nucleus of the thalamus in rhesus monkeys. Soc Neurosci Abstr 22:1867.
- Hatfield T, Han J-S, Conley M, Gallagher M, Holland P (1996) Neurotoxic lesions of basolateral, but not central, amygdala interfere with Pavlovian second-order conditioning and reinforcer-devaluation effects. J Neurosci 16:5256-5265
[Abstract/Free Full Text] .- Hiroi N, White NM (1991) The lateral nucleus of the amygdala mediates expression of the amphetamine-produced conditioned place preference. J Neurosci 11:2107-2116[Abstract].
- Holland PC, Straub JJ (1979) Differential effects of two ways of devaluing the unconditioned stimulus. J Exp Psychol 5:65-78.
- Horel JA, Keating EG, Misantone LJ (1975) Partial Kluver-Bucy syndrome produced by destroying temporal neocortex or amygdala. Brain Res 94:347-359[Web of Science][Medline].
- Malamut B, Saunders RC, Mishkin M (1984) Monkeys with combined amygdalo-hippocampal lesions succeed in object discrimination learning despite 24 hr intertrial intervals. Behav Neurosci 98:770-778[Web of Science][Medline].
- Málková L, Murray EA (1996) Effects of partial versus complete lesions of the amygdala on cross-modal associations in cynomolgus monkeys. Psychobiology 24:255-264.
- Martin-Elkins CL, Horel JA (1992) Cortical afferents to behaviorally defined regions of the inferior temporal and parahippocampal gyri as demonstrated by WGA-HRP. J Comp Neurol 321:177-192[Web of Science][Medline].
- McGaugh JL, Introini-Colison IB, Cahill LF, Castellano C, Dalmaz C, Parent MB, Williams CL (1993) Neuromodulatory systems and memory storage: role of the amygdala. Behav Brain Res 58:81-90[Web of Science][Medline].
- Murray EA (1992) Medial temporal lobe structures contributing to recognition memory: the amygdaloid complex versus the rhinal cortex. In: The amygdala: neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction (Aggleton JP, ed), pp 453-470. New York: Wiley.
- Murray EA (1996) What have ablation studies told us about the neural substrates of stimulus memory? Semin Neurosci 8:13-22.
- Murray EA, Gaffan D, Mishkin M (1993) Neural substrates of visual stimulus-stimulus association in rhesus monkeys. J Neurosci 13:4549-4561[Abstract].
- Murray EA, Gaffan EA, Flint Jr RW (1996) Anterior rhinal cortex and amygdala: dissociation of their contributions to memory and food preference in rhesus monkeys. Behav Neurosci 110:30-42[Web of Science][Medline].
- O' Boyle Jr VJ, Murray EA, Mishkin M (1993) Effects of excitotoxic amygdalo-hippocampal lesions on visual recognition in rhesus monkeys. Soc Neurosci Abstr 19:438.
- Rolls ET, Burton MJ, Mora F (1976) Hypothalamic neuronal responses associated with the sight of food. Brain Res 111:53-66[Web of Science][Medline].
- Salinas JA, Packard MG, McGaugh JL (1993) Amygdala modulates memory for changes in reward magnitude: reversible post-training inactivation with lidocaine attenuates the response to a reduction in reward. Behav Brain Res 59:153-159[Web of Science][Medline].
- Saunders RC, Aigner TG, Frank JA (1991) Magnetic resonance imaging of the rhesus monkey brain: use for stereotactic surgery. Exp Brain Res 81:443-446.
- Schwartzbaum JS (1965) Discrimination behavior after amygdalectomy in monkeys: visual and somaesthetic learning and perceptual capacity. J Comp Physiol Psychol 60:314-319[Web of Science][Medline].
- Schwartzbaum JS, Poulos DA (1965) Discrimination behavior after amygdalectomy in monkeys: learning set and discrimination reversal. J Comp Physiol Psychol 60:320-328[Web of Science][Medline].
- Spiegler BJ, Mishkin M (1981) Evidence for the sequential participation of inferior temporal cortex and amygdala in the acquisition of stimulus-reward associations. Behav Brain Res 3:303-317[Web of Science][Medline].
- Suzuki WA, Amaral DG (1994) Perirhinal and parahippocampal cortices of the macaque monkey: cortical afferents. J Comp Neurol 350:497-533[Web of Science][Medline].
Copyright ©1997 Society for Neuroscience 0270-6474/1997/176011-10$05.00/0
This article has been cited by other articles:
M. McDannald and G. Schoenbaum
Toward a Model of Impaired Reality Testing in Rats
Schizophr Bull, July 1, 2009; 35(4): 664 - 667.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Kazama and J. Bachevalier
Selective Aspiration or Neurotoxic Lesions of Orbital Frontal Areas 11 and 13 Spared Monkeys' Performance on the Object Discrimination Reversal Task
J. Neurosci., March 4, 2009; 29(9): 2794 - 2804.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. W. Johnson, M. Gallagher, and P. C. Holland
The Basolateral Amygdala Is Critical to the Expression of Pavlovian and Instrumental Outcome-Specific Reinforcer Devaluation Effects
J. Neurosci., January 21, 2009; 29(3): 696 - 704.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
P. H. Rudebeck and E. A. Murray
Amygdala and Orbitofrontal Cortex Lesions Differentially Influence Choices during Object Reversal Learning
J. Neurosci., August 13, 2008; 28(33): 8338 - 8343.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. S. Mitchell, P. G. F. Browning, and M. G. Baxter
Neurotoxic Lesions of the Medial Mediodorsal Nucleus of the Thalamus Disrupt Reinforcer Devaluation Effects in Rhesus Monkeys
J. Neurosci., October 17, 2007; 27(42): 11289 - 11295.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
E. Knapska, K. Radwanska, T. Werka, and L. Kaczmarek
Functional Internal Complexity of Amygdala: Focus on Gene Activity Mapping After Behavioral Training and Drugs of Abuse
Physiol Rev, October 1, 2007; 87(4): 1113 - 1173.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
R.J Dolan
The human amygdala and orbital prefrontal cortex in behavioural regulation
Phil Trans R Soc B, May 29, 2007; 362(1481): 787 - 799.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
J.-C. Dreher, P. J. Schmidt, P. Kohn, D. Furman, D. Rubinow, and K. F. Berman
Menstrual cycle phase modulates reward-related neural function in women
PNAS, February 13, 2007; 104(7): 2465 - 2470.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Izquierdo and E. A. Murray
Selective Bilateral Amygdala Lesions in Rhesus Monkeys Fail to Disrupt Object Reversal Learning
J. Neurosci., January 31, 2007; 27(5): 1054 - 1062.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
Y. Sugase-Miyamoto and B. J. Richmond
Neuronal Signals in the Monkey Basolateral Amygdala during Reward Schedules
J. Neurosci., November 30, 2005; 25(48): 11071 - 11083.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Izquierdo, R. K. Suda, and E. A. Murray
Comparison of the Effects of Bilateral Orbital Prefrontal Cortex Lesions and Amygdala Lesions on Emotional Responses in Rhesus Monkeys
J. Neurosci., September 14, 2005; 25(37): 8534 - 8542.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
L. L. Wellman, K. Gale, and L. Malkova
GABAA-Mediated Inhibition of Basolateral Amygdala Blocks Reward Devaluation in Macaques
J. Neurosci., May 4, 2005; 25(18): 4577 - 4586.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. W. Johnson, D. M. Bannerman, N. P. Rawlins, R. Sprengel, and M. A. Good
Impaired Outcome-Specific Devaluation of Instrumental Responding in Mice with a Targeted Deletion of the AMPA Receptor Glutamate Receptor 1 Subunit
J. Neurosci., March 2, 2005; 25(9): 2359 - 2365.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Izquierdo, R. K. Suda, and E. A. Murray
Bilateral Orbital Prefrontal Cortex Lesions in Rhesus Monkeys Disrupt Choices Guided by Both Reward Value and Reward Contingency
J. Neurosci., August 25, 2004; 24(34): 7540 - 7548.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
P. J. Kennedy and M. L. Shapiro
Retrieving Memories via Internal Context Requires the Hippocampus
J. Neurosci., August 4, 2004; 24(31): 6979 - 6985.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
S. Pollmann, J. Lepsien, K. Hugdahl, and D. Y. von Cramon
Auditory Target Detection in Dichotic Listening Involves the Orbitofrontal and Hippocampal Paralimbic Belts
Cereb Cortex, August 1, 2004; 14(8): 903 - 913.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
G. Schoenbaum
Affect, Action, and Ambiguity and the Amygdala-Orbitofrontal Circuit. Focus on "Combined Unilateral Lesions of the Amygdala and Orbital Prefrontal Cortex Impair Affective Processing in Rhesus Monkeys"
J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2004; 91(5): 1938 - 1939.
[Full Text] [PDF]
A. Izquierdo and E. A. Murray
Combined Unilateral Lesions of the Amygdala and Orbital Prefrontal Cortex Impair Affective Processing in Rhesus Monkeys
J Neurophysiol, May 1, 2004; 91(5): 2023 - 2039.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
C. L. Pickens, M. P. Saddoris, B. Setlow, M. Gallagher, P. C. Holland, and G. Schoenbaum
Different Roles for Orbitofrontal Cortex and Basolateral Amygdala in a Reinforcer Devaluation Task
J. Neurosci., December 3, 2003; 23(35): 11078 - 11084.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Pears, J. A. Parkinson, L. Hopewell, B. J. Everitt, and A. C. Roberts
Lesions of the Orbitofrontal but not Medial Prefrontal Cortex Disrupt Conditioned Reinforcement in Primates
J. Neurosci., December 3, 2003; 23(35): 11189 - 11201.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
M. R. Roesch and C. R. Olson
Impact of Expected Reward on Neuronal Activity in Prefrontal Cortex, Frontal and Supplementary Eye Fields and Premotor Cortex
J Neurophysiol, September 1, 2003; 90(3): 1766 - 1789.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
J. A. Gottfried, J. O'Doherty, and R. J. Dolan
Encoding Predictive Reward Value in Human Amygdala and Orbitofrontal Cortex
Science, August 22, 2003; 301(5636): 1104 - 1107.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
P. Blundell, G. Hall, and S. Killcross
Preserved Sensitivity to Outcome Value after Lesions of the Basolateral Amygdala
J. Neurosci., August 20, 2003; 23(20): 7702 - 7709.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
G. Schoenbaum, B. Setlow, S. L. Nugent, M. P. Saddoris, and M. Gallagher
Lesions of Orbitofrontal Cortex and Basolateral Amygdala Complex Disrupt Acquisition of Odor-Guided Discriminations and Reversals
Learn. Mem., March 1, 2003; 10(2): 129 - 140.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
K. A. Hadland, M.F.S. Rushworth, D. Gaffan, and R. E. Passingham
The Anterior Cingulate and Reward-Guided Selection of Actions
J Neurophysiol, February 1, 2003; 89(2): 1161 - 1164.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
B. W. Balleine, A. S. Killcross, and A. Dickinson
The Effect of Lesions of the Basolateral Amygdala on Instrumental Conditioning
J. Neurosci., January 15, 2003; 23(2): 666 - 675.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
S. Ahn and A. G. Phillips
Modulation by Central and Basolateral Amygdalar Nuclei of Dopaminergic Correlates of Feeding to Satiety in the Rat Nucleus Accumbens and Medial Prefrontal Cortex
J. Neurosci., December 15, 2002; 22(24): 10958 - 10965.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Easton, R.M. Ridley, H.F. Baker, and D. Gaffan
Unilateral Lesions of the Cholinergic Basal Forebrain and Fornix in One Hemisphere and Inferior Temporal Cortex in the Opposite Hemisphere Produce Severe Learning Impairments in Rhesus Monkeys
Cereb Cortex, July 1, 2002; 12(7): 729 - 736.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
P. Blundell, G. Hall, and S. Killcross
Lesions of the Basolateral Amygdala Disrupt Selective Aspects of Reinforcer Representation in Rats
J. Neurosci., November 15, 2001; 21(22): 9018 - 9026.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
J. A. Parkinson, H. S. Crofts, M. McGuigan, D. L. Tomic, B. J. Everitt, and A. C. Roberts
The Role of the Primate Amygdala in Conditioned Reinforcement
J. Neurosci., October 1, 2001; 21(19): 7770 - 7780.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
G. Schoenbaum and B. Setlow
Integrating Orbitofrontal Cortex into Prefrontal Theory: Common Processing Themes across Species and Subdivisions
Learn. Mem., May 1, 2001; 8(3): 134 - 147.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
B. W. Balleine and A. Dickinson
The Effect of Lesions of the Insular Cortex on Instrumental Conditioning: Evidence for a Role in Incentive Memory
J. Neurosci., December 1, 2000; 20(23): 8954 - 8964.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
M. G. Baxter, A. Parker, C. C. C. Lindner, A. D. Izquierdo, and E. A. Murray
Control of Response Selection by Reinforcer Value Requires Interaction of Amygdala and Orbital Prefrontal Cortex
J. Neurosci., June 1, 2000; 20(11): 4311 - 4319.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
I. S. Johnsrude, A. M. Owen, N. M. White, W. V. Zhao, and V. Bohbot
Impaired Preference Conditioning after Anterior Temporal Lobe Resection in Humans
J. Neurosci., April 1, 2000; 20(7): 2649 - 2656.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
M. Gallagher, R. W. McMahan, and G. Schoenbaum
Orbitofrontal Cortex and Representation of Incentive Value in Associative Learning
J. Neurosci., August 1, 1999; 19(15): 6610 - 6614.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
A. Bechara, H. Damasio, A. R. Damasio, and G. P. Lee
Different Contributions of the Human Amygdala and Ventromedial Prefrontal Cortex to Decision-Making
J. Neurosci., July 1, 1999; 19(13): 5473 - 5481.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
E. A. Murray and M. Mishkin
Object Recognition and Location Memory in Monkeys with Excitotoxic Lesions of the Amygdala and Hippocampus
J. Neurosci., August 15, 1998; 18(16): 6568 - 6582.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
This Article Abstract 
Full Text (PDF) Submit an eLetter Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager 
Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Web of Science (144) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Málková, L. Articles by Murray, E. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Málková, L. Articles by Murray, E. A.
ABSTRACT
|
|
|
|
 |
|