title: Orbitofrontal lesions impair use of cue-outcome associations in a devaluation task.
abstract: The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) has been implicated in the use of outcome expectancies to guide behavior. The present study used a devaluation task to examine this function. Rats first received light-food pairings followed by food-toxin pairings designed to devalue the food. After either excitotoxic or sham OFC lesions, responding to the light was reassessed. Sham-lesioned rats showed reduced responding to the light relative to behavioral controls, which had received food and toxin unpaired. In contrast, OFC-lesioned rats showed no such reductions. Combined with previous data (C. L. Pickens, M. P. Saddoris, B. Setlow, M. Gallagher, P. C. Holland, & G. Schoenbaum, 2003), these results indicate that the OFC is critical for the maintenance of information about the current incentive value of reinforcers or the use of that information to guide behavior.
authors.affiliation: Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD 21218, USA. cpicken3@jhu.edu
authors.forename: Charles L
authors.initials: CL
authors.lastname: Pickens
authors.forename: Michael P
authors.initials: MP
authors.lastname: Saddoris
authors.forename: Michela
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: Gallagher
authors.forename: Peter C
authors.initials: PC
authors.lastname: Holland
mesh_terms: D000821:Animal Feed; D000818:Animals; D001362:Avoidance Learning / Q000502:physiology*; D003214:Conditioning, Classical; D005625:Frontal Lobe / Q000293:injuries* / Q000502:physiology*; D008297:Male; D051381:Rats; D020318:Rats, Long-Evans; D012054:Reinforcement, Psychology; D013649:Taste
references.citation: Science. 2003 Aug 22;301(5636):1104-7
references.pmid: 12934011
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2003 Jan 15;23(2):666-75
references.pmid: 12533626
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2003 Oct 22;23(29):9632-8
references.pmid: 14573543
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2003 Dec 3;23(35):11078-84
references.pmid: 14657165
references.citation: Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2004 Apr;14(2):148-55
references.pmid: 15082318
references.citation: J Exp Psychol Anim Behav Process. 1977 Jan;3(1):77-104
references.pmid: 845545
references.citation: Behav Neurosci. 1993 Dec;107(6):911-25
references.pmid: 8136067
references.citation: Cognition. 1994 Apr-Jun;50(1-3):7-15
references.pmid: 8039375
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1996 Aug 15;16(16):5256-65
references.pmid: 8756453
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1997 Aug 1;17(15):6011-20
references.pmid: 9221797
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1999 Mar 1;19(5):1876-84
references.pmid: 10024371
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1999 Jul 1;19(13):5473-81
references.pmid: 10377356
references.citation: J Neurosci. 1999 Aug 1;19(15):6610-4
references.pmid: 10414988
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2000 Jun 1;20(11):4311-9
references.pmid: 10818166
references.citation: Brain Res. 2001 Jun 29;905(1-2):171-7
references.pmid: 11423092
references.citation: J Neurosci. 2002 Dec 15;22(24):10829-37
references.pmid: 12486176
references.citation: Neuron. 2003 Aug 28;39(5):855-67
references.pmid: 12948451