4.5 Article

Can cleanerfish overcome temptation? A selective role for dopamine influence on cooperative-based decision making

期刊

PHYSIOLOGY & BEHAVIOR
卷 169, 期 -, 页码 124-129

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.physbeh.2016.11.028

关键词

Pavlovian conditioned responses; Sign and goal tracking; Dopamine; D1 receptor; Cleanerfish; Cooperation

资金

  1. Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology-FCT [PTDC/MAR/105276/2008]
  2. Flying Sharks - consultadoria e inovacao, Lda.
  3. [SFRH/BPD/109433/2015]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Evidence suggests that animals are selected to make accurate choices and prioritize goals within the constraints of a given social environment to maximize fitness. These decisions are mostly based on complex processes in which value is linked to reward and cues may carry variable incentive salience. However, the level in which the incentive elicited by a cue is able to shift individual choices should differ between individuals and neurophysiological states. Here we used a notorious cooperative cleanerfish species Labroides dimidiatus to probe for differences in the incentive motivational valences given to food cues and then tested for the role of the dopaminergic system in the appraisal of such cues. We found that cleaners differed in Pavlovian conditioned approach behavioural responses to reward-associated stimuli: while the majority were fast to engage physically with the cue plate that indicated future reward delivery (sign trackers), only a few took significantly more time to respond (goal trackers). But amongst those that were considering the sole cue attractive, we discovered that the dopaminergic blockage decreased their initial propensity to approach and touch the cue plate. Our results show that dopamine disruption contributes to shifting the attribution of motivational incentive from the predictive cue towards the actual reward and provides key insight into the physiological framework of cooperative-based decision making. (C) 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据