Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. aoiaNoworyta models Karolina animal to humans From in addiction: factors alcohol vulnerability as biases cognitive Reinforcement-based n aneac fachladcinsilfcsfrial ehdlgclosalsadde o provide not does and development obstacles the psy- in methodological neuroscience, role formidable mechanisms. cognitive a faces underlying play in still RBCBs regarding advances which answers addiction by newest to definite alcohol emphasized the extent of the been on and maintenance has capitalizes could nature and AUD AUD that the in and research studying psychiatry, cognition RBCBs of and biased positive the chology, area neglected. between their of thriving interrelations perhaps, to role a the related and, causal investigating become are investigated and the behaviours psychology, theories systematically alcohol-related Although and psychological regarding less various economics effects. decisions much in the reinforcing been of history negative bi- have most long and cognitive as AUD a reinforcement-based surprising, has of is as biases context This cognitive processing often the of cognitive are in asymmetrical investigation abnormal processes and the RBCBs this While above-mentioned expectations, defined inflated (RBCBs). the have sensitiv- ambiguity, outcomes ases abnormal We on of in which interpretations based results updating. through which skewed decisions reinforcement, belief feedback, learning, negative The selec- performance and reinforcement positive to the and to ity to expectations. sensitivity value, the abnormal lead value expected an that components: by refine highest biased options core the to available two with used the of option of are composed the representations are of with abuse, alcohol starts tion and of which development use the process, alcohol and decision-making including use behaviours, alcohol goal-directed challenge. of All major initiation revealed a social the and remains health, alcohol compounding (AUD) cognitive of disorder substrates pre-existing on targets use understanding as impact However, primary and serve the its consumption. genetics that of chronic through in many deficits its advances of society with Major identification develop modern the that disorders. to neuroadaptations of neuropsychiatric led other problems have with neurobiology biggest comorbidity molecular the its and of crime, one cohesion, is addiction Alcohol AUD. of aspects various animal in state-of-the-art RBCBs and using Introduction sensitivity studies reinforcement interactions translational of possible recent role studies discuss how the of we describe describe in understanding we we and sensitivity our Finally, sections, correlates, facilitate reinforcement AUD. can separate pharmacological of of review, models in and trajectories aspects this Furthermore, neurochemical, and In various RBCBs neural, addiction. implicate research. between their alcohol preclinical that and of and theories RBCBs new clinical recurrence to cognitive investigating both Developing and contribute and for maintenance, that psychological opportunities development, (RBCBs) conditions. new describe the biases psychiatric offer cognitive briefly treated treatment reinforcement-based first its poorly the and we of still preclinical AUD in understanding of but targets our development therapeutic novel common the in of evaluation most developments and symptoms Recent the of aetiology of the studies. of one understanding better is a requires (AUD) treatments disorder use Alcohol Abstract 2021 15, March 1 a nttt fPamclg oihAaeyo Sciences of Academy Polish Pharmacology of Institute Maj 1 gt Cieslik Agata , 1 n aa Rygula Rafal and , 1 1 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ’onr&Cle,20) te tde ugse htteBS nta fihbtn eaiu,draws behaviour, inhibiting of instead BIS, the 2001; that Staiger, suggested & associations studies Kambouropoulos null other 2008; Nelson-Gray, reported BIS 2005), investigators & between Colder, Mitchell several relationship Kimbrel, Although & The experienced (Hundt, O’Connor clear. AUD sensitivity 2002). and less BAS (Franken, BIS is high between exposure consumption with alcohol this alcohol persons with of during and Furthermore, subjects sensitivity craving aspects than reinforcement 2002). was reinforcing cues negative (Franken, It alcohol-related negatively to high to scores intention 2009). and exposure and sensitivity al., during desires desire BAS craving stronger et significantly both low reinforcement Voigt negative experienced to 2009; scores and Paley, sensitivity alcohol related BAS & surprising drink was high Hasking, O’Connor not with sensitivity & 2001; Subjects (Feil is BAS Dawe, drinking craving. binge it & that of Loxton 2005), found form in 2006; the particularly also Robbins, in Muris, sensitivity, 2008). particularly & & reinforcement intake, Corr, Franken alcohol positive (Everitt 2008; 1994; higher between value and White, relationship fun-seeking, reward a to & high relation demonstrated (Carver studies a reward responsiveness, several represents anticipating reward three that fun- (c) or consumption into (b) and receiving goals; planning; alcohol subdivided desired require to further As not of related do pursuit be that persistent responses can of reinforcers to BAS encompassing biological relating anxiety loss drive, simple the especially reward the to that affect, (a) relating negative signalling suggested seeking, sensitivity: trait stimuli has reward with The of to Research associated types been 2008). response different has (Corr, 2000). AUD and in Gray, of distress & behaviour maintenance emotional the (McNaughton to inhibits support rise alcohol. contribute BIS may gives may and of also the conflict and BIS effects goal while processes punishing and uncertainty, AUD, learning and inhibition reward, reward of expected rewarding behavioural and acquisition the affect, the the positive to and motivation, to (BAS) respond approach governed system differentially underlies is approach systems BAS behaviour behavioural two The every light hypothesis, the These in this (BIS). explained systems: to system be brain According may conceptual AUD, 2004). two including (Corr, by disorders, theory the use sensitivity of substance mixtures reinforcement various to that of by vulnerability seems driven in differentially it differences is evidence, Individual abuse experimental alcohol Koeter, which accumulating (Ooteman, in on drinkers’ AUD processes. rewarding Based ‘relief of reinforcement-based the above-mentioned types called 2006). by distinct are Brink, be maintained latter may is the den there Van while drinking drinkers’, & whose cope ‘reward and Schippers former, called emotions Verheul, The negative are their alcohol, reduction). dampen of (tension to alcohol effects enhancement), anxiety properties drink mood reinforcing and individuals (e.g., negative distress some experience its affective (2011), with for positive Klinger alcohol their drink & increase others Cox to while to properties proposed cues, reinforcing according (2008) alcohol-related Finally, positive Cox to its theory related craving. & for biases incentive-sensitization Field increased attentional by an alcohol the hyper- postulated drives to by system theory model, leading driven dopaminergic related is the second a of that while The sensitization alcohol from system, that for relief dopaminergic ‘wanting’ anxiety. encompasses the subjective provides, which of or increasing alcohol reinforcement, sensitization highlighted stress negative that 1993), by Berridge, as effects driven & enhancement such (Robinson are reinforce- social states stages positive (Koob, and severe by affective model feelings driven more negative primarily allostatic pleasant and are the later the addiction the to to alcohol while According refers of the stages generally 2010). early in which the Aubin, implicated ment, 2010), & Volkow, are & (Skinner that Koob AUD processes 2003; of reinforcement-biased progression describe and to development sought theories alcohol psychological of Several recurrence and maintenance, development, aspects the AUD. various addiction in implicated of cognition that aspects evidence reinforcement-biased various experimental of in and RBCBs theories our cognitive and facilitate and sensitivity could Psychological reinforcement models of animal role state-of-the-art neuro- the using AUD. of studies neural, of addiction. translational trajectories their understanding and recent alcohol RBCBs, RBCBs how between the of describe interactions investigating we possible recurrence aspects Final 2 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ple nanme fsuisue oivsiaetenuontmcladnuohmclcreae fre- of successfully correlates recently Kozub, neurochemical & been and to Drozd Noworyta-Sokolowska, neuroanatomical has stimuli (Rygula, the paradigm animals both investigate non-human PRL for to and The and used humans history behaviour, in studies punishment overall. future sensitivity of and inforcement beneficial guide number reward to more a insufficient the is in of is track applied that measure choice to stimulus given a the any functions represent the of from stimulus, cognitive complexity determine information given the engage the a increases must that positive reinforcement on way subjects probabilistic to trials a of punished sensitivity such decision use of in of sub- a The number task the measure by reinforcement. total which negative a followed the after to constitute by outcomes outcomes sensitivity choice punishing (win–stays) Rewarded the dividing them by changed punishment. delivered calculated ject avoid stimulus that ratios, the and lose–shift response Conversely, that reward the reinforcement. such responding the reverses Consequently, with (punished intermittently gain incorrect stay versa. rule usually to vice to This is and adjusted that punished/unrewarded trials). stimulus be usually of the becomes must minority avoid rewarded on a using to usually (rewarded on and and was correct rewarded trials) trial that usually or of each is minority majority on that a a stimulus stimuli on on the more) punished respec- select (sometimes or by to feedback, two majority learn reinforcement with punishing a response, reversal to presented each and sensitivity probabilistic are after rewarding feedback individual’s the subjects following trial-and-error an paradigm, is (WSLS) this measuring tests behaviours In of these lose-shift tively. way of and effective One win-stay an of analysis. offering assessing aspects standardize and test, they collection (PRL) These because & data learning Frank 2018). testing automate Hozack, Robinson, pencil-and-paper Paulus, & and conventional Hinchcliffe 2005; over administration Slaney, al., advantages 2003; et many Schuckit, systems. were Evers & offer these Brown 2002; which tests Frank, of Robbins, Hozack, (1994), & reactivity Paulus, White Owen 2002; state Clark, Brown, and sen- in (Cools, measure Carver differences experimentally reinforcement of to individual to tests sitivity scales assessing neuropsychological computerized BIS/BAS of developed have the purpose investigators Recently, explicit in avoidance-related the exemplified and with approach- is prototypical BAS developed strategy endorse in respondents differences This which individual neuropsycholog- to assess the degree behaviours. that turn, the questionnaires by In sensitivity self-report 1983). BIS using Tranel, and re- conducted us- 1997; usually appetitive Ditto, conducted respectively is during & non-reward), evaluation Douglas reactivity frustrative be ical Iaboni, (i.e., electrodermal can responding 1988; and Fowles, appetitive alcohol measures cardiac 2001; of extinction (Beauchaine, neurophysiological of abusing during assessment The and people reward peripheral for measures. the in sponding neuropsychological on sensitivity based and BIS mostly neurophysiological are of and salient, framework BAS more a of are ing the 2011). investigation towards drinking Colder, attention objective & of shift Read The consequences to O’Connor, aversive BAS (Wardell, sensitive avoidance the protective a alcohol alcohol, be of to absence to of and leading the BIS demonstrated properties in between was tension-reducing BAS: relationship sensitivity by the rewarding, high BIS that moderated with low, suggested is combined studies was drinking when demonstrated above-mentioned problematic only BAS The (2011) but of drinking. colleagues drinking, sensitivity subsequent problematic and the against subsequent Wardell for When Moreover, Wells, factor sensitivity. be & with risk might 2011). Ellis BAS a coupled Beevers, as addiction Colder, sensitivity (Kellough, sensitivity alcohol & BIS use BAS of Read high alcohol high trajectories increased O’Connor, that and significantly the Wardell, with demonstrated Knyazev on youths. 2008; associated BIS experiments by among was and several sensitivity abuse reported BAS BIS Indeed, substance were low of against effects results 1). protects the BIS Similar BIS (Figure that the sensitive interactive of seems of more Pardo, avoidance consumption. it sensitivity a the 2009; alcohol together, the that Taken Watt, to between found of & correlation who due quantity negative (2004), Stewart factor by and a collaborators protective O’Connor, supported frequency found a been 2007; who the has as Mitchell, 2007) and theory Torrubia, act & & This may Nelson-Gray Molinuevo hangovers). BIS (Kimbrel, drinking Aguilar, (e.g., sensitive Seydel, in 3 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. n enns .. etme rsase rhmgah wrswt dnia pligytdsic mean- distinct yet spelling spellings identical different with have (words yet homographs same the or the to sea/see) sound presented or that individually meat/meet (words words e.g., homophones ambiguous meanings, response assess- either single and of the typically their ways using Other are of since include which effects 2013). ambiguity bias participant, Kanske, punishing of interpretation & potentially interpretations Kuehner of or Vollmayr, biased stimuli Wessa, rewarding measure Schick, ambiguous ing of 2017; a introduces Rygula, expectation & as phase participants’ (Papciak test serve the decision the indicates that stimuli phase, frequencies) these acquisition or intermediate to different gain an of (monetary of such feedback tones tones After subsequent (e.g., (e.g., to loss). stimuli due monetary and value two motivational of experimental discriminate can and avoidance this to emotional interpretation In learn acquire in its paradigms. which initially ambiguity in (ACI) frequencies), participants of interpretation bias approach, ambiguous-cue interpretation the of translational the and more types fully mention conflict various with to This using associated important assessed often memories. be also are from is expectations arising expectancies it alcohol-related information considering positive/appetitive negative/inhibitory alcohol, un- When Indeed, of after effects outcomes. trajectories. than outcomes, the drinking drinking information alcohol-drinking affect desirable/positive about about way after beliefs information this updates and in than on larger their higher in and reliance lower update are result information asymmetric are risks people may desirable/negative the risks that valence, when information by AUD, their that that (i.e., on information with time information dependent demonstrated (i.e., those first undesirable study information In than the extent desirable this for greater expected). incorporate arrive of described a to or to results was tend expected) maintain evidence The than they to disconfirming estimates, individuals (2011). of allows risk objective Dolan face an initial that for and the to mechanism than compared in Korn The themselves when for beliefs Sharot, assessment. assessment lower positive risk risk as unrealistically positive actual risks unrealistically at the an to view as & refers phe- to Waters such latter different tendency Klein, criterion, the two people’s (Shepperd, while encompasses to optimism others, which refers absolute the former 2011), the unrealistic The Dolan, within and & 2013). considered optimism Weinstein, Korn be comparative also (Sharot, unrealistic can bias outcomes nomena: optimism alcohol-drinking unrealistic with of associated concept Schmaling risks Lostutter, of Blume, perceptions 2014; Abnormal Blume, & (Blume negative consumption 2003). of of Marlatt, numbers demonstrated greater level & social with have the associated and studies of are sexual expectancies independent alcohol longitudinal concerning outcome consequences association alcohol and binge positive same cross-sectional of with the numbers Other greater found expectancies that (2010) enhancement colleagues expectancies. social and collaborators enhancement Pabst and and relationship by Leeman euphoria study by social the Maggs, study of while A frequent, Lee, categories associations use, different behaviour. a 1983; significant of drinking Goldman, in associations found subsequent potential & with (2009) drank the expectancies (Christiansen investigated who outcome have behaviour expectancy studies alcohol subjects social Other of outcome e.g., their 2011). alcohol Patrick, enhance consumption, overall & to Neighbors alcohol individual’s alcohol with the expectancy. expected representing particular associated manner, that endorsements positively hold expectancy they further not in the or is questionnaires whether of self-report to the sum as and item A groups 1995; questionnaire focus outcome each Widaman, alcohol-drinking of endorse & experiments, interviews individuals these Floyd which structured In 1983; using predict 1993). measured and Goldman, Kaplan, were behaviours & & expectancies addictive Stroot Christiansen Fromme, maintain self- 2000; can 1987; D’Amico, alcohol, poor Goldman, & without Fromme and & cope expectancies Christiansen to negative (Brown, ability minimized one’s relapse with outcome about (Brown, biased together beliefs colleagues positively drinking, her or documented alcohol have and efficacy studies in Brown many of engaging 1994), work for Goldman, seminal its expectancies 1980; the of with Anderson, trajectories & Beginning and drinking Inn These 2001). alcohol Goldman, Fromme, about 1989). & decisions (Leigh, determining Corbin emotions in (Jones, and role use moods, pivotal a cognition, negatively have behaviour, 4 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nunilnuoopttoa oesepaiedpmn D)a erceia orlt freinforce- of correlate neurochemical a as (DA) dopamine emphasize models neurocomputational phar- Influential for addiction targets alcohol sections. potential of next as treatment the biases (Roos, cognitive macological in AUD, reinforcement-based drinkers described and of relief are RBCBs correlates has targets, between for Neurochemical interactions which treatment effective the future acamprosate, of particularly potential while correlates as is neurochemical drinkers, well system, Specific reward as glutamatergic 2017). for Witkiewitz, antagonist, the effective receptor & down-regulate particularly opioid Mann an to be example, For shown to reinforcement negative 2017). found been and Witkiewitz, been & positive Mann has their effec- Roos, on the naltrexone, 2018; can based for al., patients evidence biases et AUD preliminary (Mann cognitive is to tendencies there resulting pharmacotherapies Indeed, words, tailoring and other of medicine. profiles of tiveness In personalized reinforcement stages for processes. positive information negative late reinforcement target important negative and the provide should and positive in addiction positive individuals’ individuals target of and simultaneously 2). understanding alcohol-dependent stages prevention to (Figure early target need tailoring AUD the that may of for addiction in treatments stages used information while different medications sensitivity, useful at example, reinforcement provide For drinking could with efforts. mechanisms associated intervention underlying differentially asymmet- be the and abnormal can expectations, Understanding as inflated such updating, ambiguity, RBCBs, of belief of interpretation types rical biased various feedback, that notion occur- performance the to & naturally support sensitivity Castellon consistently analyse (Schulman, studies these style to together, explanatory Taken or for 1982) speeches) outcomes or Seligman, described on articles the 1989). & explain newspaper focus Seligman, Metalsky would (e.g., that they are materials Abramson, how respondents techniques verbatim Typically, indicate Baeyer, ring assessment to experience. Von and to they scenarios Castro Semmel, that rise outcome (Walton, outcomes (Peterson, in abstinence given the being to for has imagine returning identify to orientation people than asked conceptual that rather that causes This relapse believe the to Within to measuring individuals abstinence turn, 1994). 1987). lead in self-imposed Gordon, Barrington, exposure and, of & alcohol & pointless Marlatt to period (Curry, is reactions a effect future addiction following often regarding violation fighting use pattern, con- attributions abstinence substance bleak attributions This the model, to global named this relapse. return and been promotes a has stable, substances, and after internal, from individual addiction of combination an concerning promotes by a patterns attribution that experienced of thought pattern argued maladaptive frame- certain They to above-mentioned a attributing learned that tributes the use. perspective, pessimism, proposed Following substance reflect this (2005) Donovan in can From 2018). & global relapse Carver, Marlatt and 1985). and & stable many (Weiner, (1985) (Scheier person, Weiner affect (specific)) work, the vulnerability may to area addiction cause internal one and the are only (whether helplessness, that (sta- causes or global-specific again to and happen (global) outcomes to (unstable)), life negative likely reoccur one’s and to constant of situation unlikely is the areas and by experience differ- pliable or an upon (internal) of or based themselves attributions cause ble) by causal the caused make occurred (whether was event they event stable-unstable the question, the (external)), why this outcomes. (whether answer prior wonder internal-external To of often dimensions: causes 2014). people which ent the al., alcohol, styles, explains et with attributional person Jessup experiences a as 1989; which negative (DeJoy, defined in or been manner positive the have following as mechanisms Indeed, outcomes described These (1984) alcohol-drinking Rich, colleagues them. regarding and underlie Baumann, Alloy expectancies that Schaefer, on mechanisms 2009; not the on Fischer, focuses approach & conceptual Ellis Warren, Another Wells, Warren, images, (Beevers, 2012; ambiguous 2010). using Amir, faces Jr, investigated type & Zarate neutral be each (Hindash & also and Luckenbaugh words of can emotional such proportion biases and with of interpretation or Ambiguity threatening/emotional list number often 1978). a the both Bresnick, from as have Weingartner, & participants established usually & Green by is Gorfein studies made bias 1969; these interpretation interpretation (Drury, of in an money) used and or interpretations, homographs alter neutral and cha 5 e se per but Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ouae ujciehdncepcain n mat eiffrainb euigngtv expectations negative learning reducing DA by impaired that formation evidence to belief provided led above-mentioned findings future. impacts These the levels the and regarding 2004). with DA expectations R, converged hedonic enhanced O’Reilly subjective latter where & modulates The Seeberger beliefs disease, (Frank, update outcomes Parkinson’s future. unwanted to which the with from ability 2012), about patients the Dolan, impairing information from & by Chowdhury undesirable observations This bias Korn, to optimism 2009). Guitart-Masip, response increased Dolan, (Sharot, L-DOPA & in 2012 Fan of Brown, in administration Shiner, report that of (Sharot, a events revealed estimates L- by same enhanced of these supported subsequently administration from was events that derived study life demonstrated be colleagues future to and positive pleasure Sharot hedonic of receptors , the construction In these imaginative that treatment. the AUD implicate during D for they DOPA dopamine target and novel to sensitivity, a addition reinforcement be in abnormal may that underlie role suggest also The results may These learning. dysregulation 2016). of al., rate et lower (Groman way a in resulting D reinforcement, dopamine positive D to a dopamine sensitivity performing of lower rats a D in with dopamine PET D elegant using associated for dopamine of (2016), role midbrain series collaborators greater a study, a and demonstrated that Groman by task, by complemented PRL study were spatial A humans three-choice in models. animal Studies using respectively. studies with reinforcement, (PET) & individual negative tomography Reuter that and emission demonstrated Cramon, tive D positron [11C]raclopride), von dopaminergic generally and using Neumann, a in ([11C]SCH23390 be (2015), demonstrated Klein, differences radioligands to collaborators and receptor (Jocham, shown and reversal DA Cox response been selective a 2015, two rewarded also after In have a response subjects 2009). with rewarded newly stick A1 Ullsperger, a to it. sustain tendency without to decreased ability those proba- the than a in efficiently in D study, impaired less dopamine this reduced consequences In with negative paradigm. carriers The neuroimaging with allele level. a A1 using receptor task, (2007) the learning colleagues at bilistic and regulated Klein be by to demonstrated D seem been rat dopamine also sen- the of biases the role within cognitive Notably, important associated sensitivity. lesions reinforcement and feedback, dopaminergic Grospe negative reinforcement by negative 6-hydroxydopamine-induced increased to study significantly sitivity study, preclinical signal in a that which resulted in confirmed In striatum dips, 2002). recently dorsomedial DA been Rosenkranz, (2018). has & occludes sensitivity collaborators feedback Grace turn regulating and 2005; in in (Frank, DA which of learning role increases chose punishment-based striatum, The neurotransmission versus they the DA which reward of within with affecting boosting DA frequency differentially pharmacological the of that not levels proposed but been tonic gain has 2008; high-probability It Frank, chose colleagues loss. and increased subjects & low-probability Pessiglione (L-DOPA) which L-3,4-dihydroxyphenylalanine by Sherman with of study administration Cohen, frequency the by In the Moustafa, activity 2001; DA 2000). Robbins, 2009; of Robbins, & enhancement & D’Esposito, Sahakian (2006), Polkey Barker, & Summers, Cools, Sahakian, Jagust 2009; Rogers, positive Miyakawa, Swainson, al., from learn- et Gibbs, in from learning (Bodi Frank, impairments (improving therapy learning reported Cools, pathway dopaminergic studies to by Go other balance punishment Several relative the from the towards punishment). feedback/reward ing shifting from balance positive learning DA the the to from between low shifting relative feedback/reward balance DA learning with the high ganglia (impairing in and pathway basal shifts punishment) DA-induced the NoGo reflected of the could availability pathways (2005), DA effect towards Frank this high BIS/NoGo/indirect by Importantly, and suggested and low As outcomes. BAS/Go/direct of negative positive neurotransmission. associ- effects the dopaminergic of was opposite from of mediation medication) the than boosting off the pharmacological positive patients colleagues in by the Parkinson’s and reversed DA Frank from in be study, of learning (as classic role worse DA a the with of In availability ated Indeed, overestimate. lowered Seeberger to that 2010). hard Frank, demonstrated Fellous, is 2014; (2004) biases & al., cognitive Frank resulting et Samson, and Eisenegger reinforcement 2004; 2010; R, Hikosaka, O’Reilly & & Matsumoto (Bromberg-Martin, learning ment 3 \ otrcpo gns,paieoe hc mardtepromneo asi eysimilar very a in rats of performance the impaired which pramipexole, agonist, sout-receptor 3 eetr nsniiiyt enocmn a ute ofimdfloigamnsrto fa of administration following confirmed further was reinforcement to sensitivity in receptors 2 1 eetrgn oyopim(R2TQI)i enocmn erighas learning reinforcement in (DRD2-TAQ-IA) polymorphism gene receptor n D and 2 eetrbnigdtrieteeetvns flann rmposi- from learning of effectiveness the determine binding receptor 3 eetraalblt idctdb 1C-+-HObnig was binding) [11C]-(+)-PHNO by (indicated availability receptor 6 2 eetrdniislandt vi actions avoid to learned densities receptor 3 eetr nrifreetlann.In learning. reinforcement in receptors 1 /D 2 oaieD dopamine , 3 receptor Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. eooi epaeihbtr(SI iaorm hc a enpsuae oaetpesnpi serotonin selective pre-synaptic the affect of to dose postulated acute low, been a has the that which outcomes. in demonstrated aversive citalopram, 5-HT to (2006) levels (SSRI) sensitivity colleagues 5-HT inhibitor increased and low reuptake transmission), an Chamberlain of serotonin to 5-HT by leads effect down-regulate study (SERT), the tryptophan a reduced temporarily transporter study serotonin Indeed, acute to a to the either (acting to of extensively stimulation of up-regulation used leads or way receptor been neurotransmission by pre-synaptic has 5-HT transmission, brain, that Tran,human increasing 5-HT procedure Rodriguiz, reducing that a Sachs, (ATD), whereas 2015; suggested depletion al., outcomes, have et aversive 2006; 2015) Rygula to Sahakian, 2017; Caron, & sensitivity Ullsperger, Robbins & & Clark, Wetsel Fischer Blackwell, 2008; Muller, learn- Iyer, Chamberlain, Sahakian, reinforcement 2010; in & implicated al., Robinson crucially et Cools, neurotransmitter (Bari second reports the Published is ing. (5-HT) serotonin DA, with Along loo dito n hudb osdrda agt o hraooia ramn fAD(iue3.Of 3). (Figure of AUD maintenance of and treatment development pharmacological the for targets into as insights systems considered provide neurotransmitter be to 5-HT should potential and and the addiction DA have alcohol may of RBCBs manipulation in psychopharmacologic implicated strategies section, treatment this effective results summarize as receptor To These manipulations pre-synaptic serotonergic expectations. outcomes. aversive and ATD, outcome to target alcohol-drinking either sensitivity potential modulating of increased a in way an sensitivity as to 5-HT reduced by leads suggest a transmission, SERT, strongly to of 5-HT leads up-regulation reducing transmission or the whereas 5-HT stimulation, in increasing those outcomes, shift that on aversive suggest effects ’pessimistic’ to significant reports a no published caused had together, escitalopram and Taken (Golebiowska ‘optimistic’ of bias as ’pessimistic’. administration judgement classified as acute cognitive the animals classified study, on in of previously cues manipulations valence that ambiguous negatively. 5-HT basal In of more acute the interpretation cues of 2017). on ambiguous effects the Rygula, depend the interpreted that & might citalo- ambiguous animals demonstrated ambiguity the SSRI the of further the of mg/kg), interpretation study, 2017 interpretation 10 positive that from towards and revealed In study animals (5 (2014) biased a rats. doses collaborators Interestingly, significantly in higher mg/kg and bias at 1 Rygula judgement while of by cognitive cues, dose study low modulating behaviours, the a in win-stay recently at of 5-HT confirmed of pram results of effect effect ratios The role an an increased important 2012), dose (2020). was al., the caused higher colleagues which et the also and (Ineichen feedback, of manipulations reinforcement Wilkinson negative administration positive by mentioned acute to to the following sensitivity sensitivity of increased (2010) decreased indicating collaborators Both a and Bari citalopram. to by of led mice observed mutant strain that heterozygous spatial mutant to in operant investigated similar null two-choice function et automated SERT SERT an (Bari a in in depletion reduction demonstrated from 5-HT (2012) genetic global colleagues increased that following and paradigm (2006), reported Ineichen discrimination collaborators was 2012, and effect In postu- Chamberlain similar was 2010). by A which al., study drug, reinforcement. the above-mentioned this negative 5-HT lowering the of to serotonin to by sensitivity dose inhibitory similar sensitivity low via nuclei, a activity feedback raphe system of negative the 5-HT administration decreased silence acute temporarily contrast, citalopram acute neuro- to In study, SSRI animal lated 5-HT this behaviours. using of In of lose-shift research dose reinforcement. manipulations of negative from different high ratio and evidence that positive a ample to demonstrated of sensitivity by (2010) altered administration al., supported in collaborators resulted & et been and rats (Willeit Ouden has in Bari 5-HT transmission RBCBs (den 2010, extracellular in learning In of serotonin reinforcement levels of negative models. decreased role increased homozygosity, The and with L’ binding 2013). associated SERT Specifically, in was increased DA) 2010), punishment. with (and allelic Praschak-Rieder, trans- following linked that 5-HT DA revealed been adaptation of study and this has behavioural 5-HT role of which the predicted the results encoding SERT The studied genes VNTR). in who the 3’UTR DAT1 variation in (2013), rs25531; polymorphisms plus collaborators two comple- 5HTTLPR (SERT: and of were porters function Ouden studies predict a above-mentioned den to as the by subjects sensitivity of of reinforcement report ability results the the The enhanced by ATD predictions. where mented reward (2008), collaborators affecting and without Cools punishment by study a in reported 1A uoeetr,icesstesniiiyt eaiefebc ntePLts.Smlreet were effects Similar task. PRL the in feedback negative to sensitivity the increases autoreceptors, 7 1A uoeetratvto in activation autoreceptor Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. yua 01 yua&Ppk 06,tepelnclvrino h R akmyb sdntol for only study not a used In be outcomes. may treatment task pharmacological and PRL Noworyta how processes the 2019; evaluating cognitive of for other Rygula, also version with but & interacts preclinical sensitivity Fijalkowska sensitivity reinforcement the Rychlik, of this 2016), bases (Drozd, neurochemical Popik, studies or & neuroanatomical recent investigating Rygula by 2021; demonstrated Rygula, As & 2014). (Nishitani cortex nucleus prefrontal al., via raphe the the neurotransmission et in 2017). in glutamatergic (AMPARs) release Rygula, receptors affecting 5-HT acid & amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazolepropionic to potentiates Bollen via & addition also (Rychlik, ketamine the in Houghton neurotransmission (NMDARs), that that (Hales, hypothesized receptors 5-HT demonstrated was N-methyl-D-aspartate by cues have it was indirectly ambiguous ketamine, reports Ketamine mediated and of recent citalopram were Indeed, interpretation of latter paradigm. effects the the the PRL on of in preclinical similarity effects effects the the positive Given with and in robust 2017). type Wilkinson sensitivity have Robinson, of feedback by feedback to study and doses a treatment negative reported higher by ketamine decreased also of between supported towards recently interaction administration were an trend of the results observed ratio a following These also the observed who 2010). decreased that (2020), al., persistently et to collaborators and (Bari similar that citalopram significantly study manner paradigm, SSRI ketamine in a the A PRL with outcomes in treatment the negative 2015). behaviours acute of to study, lose-shift al., version sensitivity this preclinical et down-regulates In a selectively (Rygula rates, animals. using ketamine outcomes within sensitivity compound demonstrated, negative depletions non-monoaminergic reinforcement (2017) and 5-HT the overall collaborators employing rewarding that and in marmoset, both demonstrated Rychlik impairments the from which by different manifested primate, learning task, that amygdala non-human temporal PRL demonstrated a and the including in (2010) cortex of study orbitofrontal colleagues version sensitivity. a translational the and reinforcement by and in Bari complemented changes preclinical humans, significant further a using in in were study, resulted used results analysis, landmark rats in aforementioned These WSLS that neurotransmission the the to 5-HT In on of reinforcement, analogous manipulations based reinforcement. negative task and vice negative and proportion PRL trial the to and positive while a preceding sensitivity reinforcement to ‘incorrect’, positive each indicates to animals becomes sensitivity of lose-shifts the indexes reached, hole outcome of behaviours of win-stay is or the of sensitivity criterion proportion lever to the the reversal according where ‘correct’ assess the analysed previously to negative hole, is the humans, maximize or or behaviour hole. is, to to lever positive or Similar holes that ‘correct’ lever misleading or the reverse; ‘incorrect’ versa. levers occasional of probabilities the appropriate choices disregarding for the the consecutive versa and while to several vice delivery responding After and of by ‘incorrect’ punishment respectively, chance feedback. behaviour ‘correct’ (the 20%, minimize small the their and one a and choosing adjust 80% only other upon reward to to and punishment the have punishment set and choosing animals the reward usually Conversely, The the receiving are receiving of hole (mild of probability out). punishment or probabilities high a time lever The receiving receiving a and of reward. of with probability probability the reward food associated low high receiving a of is a a receive hole) and lack with to pellet) or or associated chamber reward lever is or shock conditioning hole) solution operant foot Rygula or sucrose an 2017; lever of electric in Rygula, ‘correct’ drop to & 2010) (a (the Bollen the sensitivity al., reward them (Rychlik, In et a biased of levers (Bari 4). press one of (Figure holes to investigation Choosing trained paradigm nose-poke the reward. are PRL or for animals the 2016) the sections, used Popik, task, previous be & PRL the the can in of that mentioned version is rat tools models preclinical protocols. animal non- behavioural promising in simple using reinforcement most relatively RBCBs using the that modelling processes of complex mechanisms with inherently One difficulty cognitive these main reinforcement-based capturing the is the treatment However, animals human elucidating its behaviours. for for and addiction-related AUD essential useful to of is contribute are aspects models that various preclinical models in Creating RBCBs animal of state-of-the-art role using Further the studies literature. elucidating alcohol tr 8 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. nomgntcapoce oudrtnigisatooy ae naalbekolde tsesta using also may that we disorder seems Finally, diverse it this knowledge, enterprise. available in this on differences Based for individual aetiology. impetus on its initial focus understanding an to a what approaches provide as of genetic may endophenotypes, a inform ‘re-purposing’ expressions ketamine of as possible different the and concept The manipulations, for between the SSRIs cognition. pharmacological used contact mentioned as biased make reinforcement be of such from readily can effects agents resulting more that disorders of the common will medications described be identify that fact, also may field, in may, have RBCBs translational this We of of in development analysis research analyses neuroscience. the multi-level of neurochemical highlighted approach basic phase and also psychological and new have neural a We clinic a with advocated disease. herald combined have this which which define we of tools, theories, further understanding review, To learning our this research. and facilitate of in may cognitive avenues last AUD, on new the and opened largely Over and RBCBs based enriched AUD them. has between regarding addiction defining alcohol relationships inquiry in of of the development helpful the field in be the factors even strengthened important may as and RBCBs and of disorders consideration the neuropsychiatric decade, many in control. attentional occur more in RBCBs be deficient may one directions which in future AUD, than and in predicting Conclusions at therapy cognitive-behavioural poor patient of a study efficacy that in the The in successful into revealed respectively. processing insight punishment disruption, important making underlying attentional mechanisms decision provided neural and in component uncertainty of bias the of mechanisms—elevated of negative inactivation fear differentiation cognitive general that the distinct increased task, above, two cortices conflict colleagues prefrontal via approach-avoidance mentioned and ventrolateral Clarke an as by or using study orbitofrontal least, A demonstrated, anterior not monkeys drinking. regarding marmoset but decisions effectiveness in on Last the (2014) influence results powerful AUD. for a These implications in has positive 2021). outcomes important including negative have Rygula, and interventions, & could negative (Noworyta reinforcement pharmacological anxiety to to of on sensitivity sensitivity escitalopram in trait of SSRI phenotypes that investigated with using phenotypes these the treatment demonstrated research between 4 and acute Recent differences of identified task, significant (2020). effects statistically paradigm collaborators PRL the reported and PRL and the Wilkinson rats the by in in myopia’ study of reinforcement agomelatine ‘reward a version and of reinforcement in preclinical the later form mirtazapine year reported a a drugs a (2019) from colleagues antidepressant supported result and were the to Drozd results proposed 2019, of In been effects previous has 2016). the modulating effect Floresco, whether & surprising of feedback. regardless Phillips this negative Wang, often, not, to more (Dalton, choice or sensitivity of rewarded correct reduced recently inactivation was study, the and select same choice feedback to the positive tended In animals to the 2016). sensitivity Since expectancies Floresco, increased promoting while reward & cortex feedback, of simply Phillips prelimbic negative violations Wang, core the or following (Dalton, the behaviours feedback positive negative in either of and by implicated inactivation to reward signalled was that sensitive activity the demonstrated less cortex group animals yield orbitofrontal shell same rendered lateral the to the cortex with 2016, likely orbitofrontal In manner, medial more nucleus complementary the stimuli. actions the yet reward-associated that towards the distinct found approach a to paradigm, the in PRL selection In reward-seeking the response reinforcement. of facilitate modelling version to guiding core computational preclinical sensitivity and a biased by shell using of (2014), accumbens supported background preclinical colleagues neuroanatomical Several been and the Dalton also have 2019). reinforcement investigated 2014, positive Rygula, have It results to rats & These sensitivity in Drozd trait. trait Parkitna, studies behavioural that Rodriguez flexibility. enduring and Jablonska, to cognitive other and Kozub, (Noworyta-Sokolowska, sensitivity each with stable that of by a associated independent rodents study considered were is in A traits be time AUD. these could first that including reinforcement showed the disorders, positive for psychiatric and demonstrated various negative (2019) to ‘optimistic’ colleagues vulnerability their than and predict feedback Noworyta-Sokolowska negative biases may to cognitive ’pessimistic’ s 9 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. estvt orwr n eaiefebc napoaiitcrvra erigts nrt.Neuropsychophar- rats. in of task learning JW generality reversal Dalley probabilistic the a A, 35 in Aidoo-Micah and macology feedback AC, negative style and Mar reward Attributional D, to Caprioli sensitivity 46 DE, (1984). psychology Theobald ME A, social Bari and Seligman personality & of LY, in Journal Abramson and helplessness. C, models learned Peterson animal LB, in reinforcement Alloy to sensitivity biased of References investigation the for used humans. be can the L-3,4- shape that to tools help and may 4. biases (SSRIs) Figure these outcome (AUD). of disorder and targeting inhibitors use Pharmacological sensitivity alcohol models. feedback of reuptake animal trajectories modulate and to serotonin humans demonstrated in been expectations (selective have (L-DOPA)) manipulations dihydroxyphenylalanine and pharmacological prevention tailoring Several for 3. information optimism. Figure unrealistic useful and provide expectations, could outcome efforts. mechanisms and positive intervention ambiguity underlying inflated of interpretation the and biased feedback, negative Understanding negative lowered and positive situations, to conflict sensitivity abnormal include (AUD) these of trajectory of 2. and sensitivity Figure development Abnormal the processes. (AUD) affecting disorder punishment-driven (RBCBs) use and biases alcohol reward- cognitive reinforcement-based various induces with systems associated is Sciences. (BIS) of Academy 1. Polish Pharmacology Figure of to Institute 2018/31/B/NZ7/03690 Maj grant the (Research of Centre Figures funds Science statutory National the Polish by the and by RR) supported AUD. was of work recurrence This and in development, involved aetiology, the regions integrated in subcortical an sensitivity Acknowledgement provide and reinforcement to of required cortical is role between development the empirical balance and of and pathways dynamic conceptual account voltammetry, further neuronal use and Finally, to characterize AUD. in function desirable and to profiles highly exact RBCBs known measures be the with electrophysiological will elucidate drugs It and AUD. using to biosensors in studies other RBCBs pharmacological targeting or this detailed of in optogenetics, more value investigation the need further understand still and to neurochemical limited, also humans at Second, still over We looking are occur PFC needed. studies context unfortunately, that the this is variables. abstinence, systems in of area of cognitive sensitivity dopaminergic regions periods reinforcement and into these multiple altered persist serotonergic of within on can correlates of activity and activity based AUD neural of altered in treatments course with changes the associated personalized distributed elucidate striatum are to design the the help there to and of should that degree RBCBs help know the of we may know tests although not and preclinical and do translational issue trait still of a we development this number as First, The a reinforcement the AUD. improved still negative/positive address. support to are to for to there to vulnerability sensitivity targets need addiction, increased/decreased evidence will drug alcohol between enough research of novel relationship future provided trajectories reveal causal that the has to determine issues review help can that outstanding may this RBCBs processes of that turn hope neurobiological claim in we reveal the This of to Although validity AUD. help treatments. can in personalized ACI, role or and their PRL and preclinical RBCBs the modulate as such models, rodent-based enocmn-ae ontv issascae ihteptohsooyo loo s disorder use alcohol of pathophysiology the with associated biases cognitive Reinforcement-based h rbblsi eesllann PL aaim n ftems rmsn,translational promising, most the of One paradigm. (PRL) learning reversal probabilistic The : estvt ftebhvorlatvto ytm(A)adtebhvorlihbto system inhibition behavioural the and (BAS) system activation behavioural the of Sensitivity 1290-1301. oaie(A n eooi 5H)mdlt enocmn-ae ontv biases. cognitive reinforcement-based modulate (5-HT) serotonin and (DA) Dopamine . 10 : 681. tal. et , 21) eooi modulates Serotonin (2010). Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. orP 20) h enocmn estvt hoyo esnlt n scoahlg.ItJPsychophys- J Int psychopathology. and personality of 28 theory Rev 69 sensitivity Biobehav reinforcement iol The Neurosci enhances personality. (2008). volunteers PJ and Corr healthy theory sensitivity in 33 Reinforcement depletion Neuropsychopharmacology (2004). tryptophan prediction. PJ Acute reward Corr affect (2008). not B does Sahakian but & prediction punishment OJ, control Robinson behavioural R, and emotional Cools of 12 regulation Serotoninergic Sci Cogn 29 (2008). Trends TW Neurosci Robbins processes. J & predicts AC, Roberts dopamine administration. R, Striatal drug Cools (2009). dopaminergic M to D’Esposito sensitivity & its W, 1538-1543. and Jagust A, learning Miyakawa reversal SE, 22 Gibbs outcome-specific reversal Neurosci MJ, probabilistic Frank of J mechanisms R, imaging. neural Cools the resonance 11 in Defining magnetic Cortex (2002). function functional TW Cereb event-related cognitive Robbins using & impaired AM, demands. learning Owen or task L, Clark Enhanced and R, Cools medication (2001). dopaminergic TW of Robbins function J & a 1143. BJ, sensitivity. as Sahakian reinforcement disease RA, Parkinson’s in Barker changes R, via Cools behavior alters SJ and Sawiak 34 TD, dopamine Fryer Neurosci YT, caudate Hong 51 upregulates Psychology demographic/background R, Clinical Rygula depletion versus and RN, Consulting expectancies Cardinal of HF, Journal Alcohol-related Clarke drinking. Neurochemical adolescent (1983). of prediction (2006). MS the 311 BJ in Goldman Science variables Sahakian & humans. & in BA, TW, learning Robbins Christiansen probabilistic L, and Clark inhibition 67 response AD, Psychology of Blackwell Social modulation U, and Personality Muller of to SR, Journal Responses Chamberlain Scales. Affective Bas and Bis Activation, the Behavioral - Behavioral-Inhibition, 319-333. 48 Punishment their Psychology and (1994). Clinical alcohol: Reward TL and from Impending White reinforcement consulting & of of CS, Expectations Journal Carver 48 (1980). patterns. alcohol LR drinking on Anderson to studies & relation of A, and Journal Inn domain MS, expectancies. instrument Goldman an alcohol SA, adult Questionnaire: Brown and Expectancy Alcohol adolescent The of assessment (1987). MS the Goldman rewarding, for & control: BA, young motivational Christiansen SA, in on Brown Dopamine agonists 68 (2010). dopamine Neuron O of alerting. Hikosaka and & effects aversive, M, the Matsumoto of ES, N Bromberg-Martin study Daw within-subjects CE, 132 and Myers Brain between- A, patients. Parkinson’s Moustafa a predict H, behavior personality: Nagy drinking seeking S, about Keri Beliefs N, (2003). Bodi 35 GA Drugs Marlatt Psychoactive & them- J KB, think consequences. Schmaling people Developmentsdrinking TW, Do & Lostutter Applications consequences: AW, Psychology and Blume consequences. expectancies of outcome out Alcohol and (2014). 33 into interpersonal AK research selves ambiguous Blume and emotionally therapy & of AW, Cognitive Identification Blume individuals. (2009). nondysphoric K and Fischer dysphoric & among AJ, stimuli Ellis 13 TT, Psychopathol Wells Dev model CG, integrated psychopathology. Beevers an in toward functioning theory: system motivational nervous Gray’s and autonomic development, of tone, Vagal (2001). T Beauchaine : 151-152. : 7663-7676. : : 31-40. : 2385-2395. 815-834. : 395-399. 11 tal. et , 20) eadlann n h novelty- the and Reward-learning (2009). tal. et , 21) riorna dopamine Orbitofrontal (2014). : 17-23. : 4563-4567. : : 183-214. 861-863. : 283-290. : : 419. : 2291-2299. 317-332. : 483-491. : 249-257. : 1136- : : Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. rn J ebre C ’elyRC(04.B arto ysik ontv enocmn erigin learning reinforcement cognitive stick: by or carrot By (2004). of C account R 306 neurocomputational O’Reilly Science 17 & a parkinsonism. Neurosci LC, ganglia: Cogn Seeberger J basal MJ, Parkinsonism. Frank the nonmedicated in and medicated modulation in dopamine deficits Dynamic cognitive (2005). MJ Frank 25 Psychophysiology approach. motivational A assessment psychopathology: clinical 373-391. and of Psychophysiology refinement (1988). and DC development Fowles the for in dopamine analysis 7 with Factor assessment interplay (1995). Psychological its KF instruments. and Widaman serotonin & of FJ, role causes, Floyd the development, 11 on neuroscience its update human of An in (2017). review Frontiers M reward. a Ullsperger behaviors: & addictive AG, 97 in Fischer dependence bias alcohol Attentional and (2008). Drug consequences. WM and Cox & Addiction M, use. Field alcohol and strategies coping 16 personality, between Theory relationship & The Research (2008). P Neuropsychopharmacology Hasking learning. & J, reversal Feil probabilistic to BJ in Sahakian actions feedback J, negative Jolles from FM, 30 during addiction: Veen cortex der drug van prefrontal L, for of Clark reinforcement R, Cools of EA, systems Evers 8 Neural Neurosci Nat (2005). compulsion. TW to Robbins habits & BJ, 39 M Everitt Neuropsychopharmacology PK, Gandamaneni learning. L, reinforcement Clark human A, in Linssen receptors acute M, 2 Ways Naef and Word C, bias proba- Eisenegger pseudo-homographs. the judgement and of cognitive Homographs version of (1969). rat DA 359 Effects the Drury Res in Brain flexibility (2019). Behav cognitive R and test. Rygula feedback reversal-learning to & bilistic sensitivity A, on Fijalkowska treatment 80 M, M antidepressant Neuron Rychlik Hoogman learning. M, R, reversal Rijpkema Drozd on JA, serotonin Education Elshout and G, Health dopamine Fernandez of ND, Driving. effects Daw Alcohol-Impaired HE, Ouden on den Perspective Theory Attribution An 16 36 Quarterly Neurosci (1989). J DM Learning. Regions DeJoy Reversal Different Probabilistic by to Contributions in Cortex Multifaceted Prefrontal shell (2016). Medial 2006. accumbens SB and Floresco nucleus Orbitofrontal & by the AG, involvement of Phillips attributional 34 NY, Preferential Neurosci Wang an GL, J of (2014). Dalton shifts. validation SB reversal and Floresco effect: learning & 55 probabilistic violation AG, Psychology mediating Abstinence Clinical Phillips and GL, Consulting (1987). Dalton of JR In Journal Gordon cessation. change. smoking & and with GA, use construct of Marlatt 131-158. Determinants pp S, Blackwell, addiction use: Curry Wiley with alcohol intervention ed. and of 2nd assessment model problems, to motivational approaches other Goal-based A and counseling: (2011). motivational of E 109 Handbook Klinger Neuroimage & outcomes. WM, negative Cox and M positive Leyton from CA, Clark learning LK, predict Fellows differentially K, Larcher MJ, Frank SM, Cox : 1138-1147. : 359-372. : 526-537. : 1940-1943. : 1481-1489. : 286. : 484. : : 619-629. 12 1-20. tal. et , le U uller ¨ : : 4618-4626. 1090-1100. tal. et , 21) titlD n 2signaling D2 and D1 Striatal (2015). tal. et , : 10. : 2366-2375. 20) eooegcmodulation Serotonergic (2005). 21) oeo oaieD2 dopamine of Role (2014). tal. et , : : : 95-101. 51-72. 145. 21) Dissociable (2013). : 1996- : Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. abuoolsN tie K(01.Teiflec fsniiiyt eado eciiyt alcohol- to reactivity on satisfactorily reward not to sensitivity does of still influence glass The the 96 change. (2001). empty, Addiction of PK half cues. mechanism Staiger related or a as & full expectancies N, Half alcohol DRD2 Kambouropoulos (2001). on Dopamine knowledge K (2009). for Fromme M thirst & Ullsperger the 29 W, quench & Neurosci Corbin J M, activity. BT, Reuter neural Jones DY, associated 46 Cramon and drugs von learning psychoactive reversal J, of alters Neumann Journal polymorphism study. TA, qualitative Klein FW a G, Chi use: CM, Jocham drug Weisner and DD, alcohol punishment-shift Satre on and AL, impact reward-stay Jones their TB, mediating 63 Ross processes Neuropharmacology MA, E serotonin. the Jessup by Seifritz for modulation E, evidence their and Sautter mice: for reward KP, in and to Lesch behaviour test children S, learning ADHD Spinelli reversal of H, stic predicts Sigrist response BIS, Psychophysiological C, low (1997). Ineichen not B but Ditto BAS, 34 & Psychophysiology High VI, extinction. (2008). Douglas 44 RO Differences F, Individual Nelson-Gray Iaboni and symptoms. & Personality depressive adults. JT, with in Mitchell symptoms individuals NA, externalizing in Kimbrel bias NE, interpretation Hundt Negative 36 (2012). research and N adole- therapy Amir in Cognitive & behaviour AHC, drinking and Hindash 40 eating Differences disordered Individual neuropsy- coping, and European sensitivity, Personality scents. rats. Reinforcement in (2006). making PA decision Hasking effect differential antidepressants reveal onset methods computational rapid 27 and and chopharmacology Behavioural delayed (2017). how ES for Robinson Lesions effects & 6-OHDA CJ, Following Houghton Deficits CA, 374 Flexibility Hales Neuroscience Cognitive Striatum. (2018). Dorsomedial ME Rat Ragozzino the & J of 36 PM, Ropchan Neurosci Baker J L, GM, Making. Chen Grospe Decision B, Inflexible Massi with JR, Associated Petrullli Is neurons. Availability NJ, amygdala Smith basolateral of SM, responses Groman conditioned 40 of 77 Regulation Methods behavior (2002). Research & JA Behavior Physiology Rosenkranz homophones. & of AA, norming Grace Affect the Cortex On Prefrontal (2008). Medial KM 522-530. Weingartner Not & but 11 Orbitofrontal DS, Neurosci Behav the Gorfein Front of Rats. Lesions in (2017). Bias Judgment R Cognitive Rygula & 3 J, Psychology Golebiowska treatment Preventive and prevention, and assessment, Applied to abuse. Applications concept: alcohol expectancy of alcohol 5 The (1994). Assessment psychometric MS and Psychological Development Goldman questionnaire. alcohol: of expectancy effects new Comprehensive a ad- (1993). of D of Kaplan assessment Psychology & EA, expectancies. Stroot outcome K, Fromme alcohol adolescent Measuring 14 (2000). use. behaviors EJ substance dictive D’Amico students’ & college K, and Fromme characteristics 40 personality Differences BIS/BAS Individual (2006). and P Personality Muris & IHA, Franken and Personality craving. alcohol predicts 32 sensitivity Differences (BAS) Individual system approach Behavioral (2002). IHA Franken : : 206. 1268-1280. : : : 349-355. 489-493. 1175-1185. : 116-123. : 502-511. : 1497-1503. : 677-688. : 13 80-90. : 131-144. : 51. tal. et , tal. et , tal. et , : : 21) infiatlf vnsand events life Significant (2014). 1012-1021. 6732-6741. 21) salsigaprobabili- a Establishing (2012). : : 21) oaieD Receptor D3 Dopamine (2016). 19-26. 565-575. : 3695-3704. : 450-459. : Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. ’onrM,&PlyB(09.Pyharccniin soitdwt rntlachlepsr.Dev exposure. alcohol prenatal with associated conditions Psychiatric (2009). 15 Rev B Res Paley Disabil & Psychopharmacology MJ, rats. in O’Connor trait behavioural Sensiti- enduring (2019). and R stable Rygula a 236 to & as R, (Berl) feedback response Drozd positive J, the and negative Parkitna of to Rodriguez vity predictors J, Jablonska as A, 43 sensitivity Kozub Neuropsychopharmacology K, reinforcement Noworyta-Sokolowska European of rats. Phenotypes 81 in behaviour (2021). treatment health antidepressant R Predicting acute Rygula theory. motivation & Protection K, rat (2005). Noworyta ER the Seydel in & H, release Boer serotonin P, 17 Norman ketamine-induced Neuropsychopharmacology T mediate of Nakagawa Journal receptors H, International Shirakawa acetylcholine cortex. M, nicotinic prefrontal Yamashiro and N, receptors Asaoka PA making K, decision Nagayasu temporal 28 in N, Neurosci dopamine Nishitani for J role parkinsonism. A in (2008). MJ maximization Frank reward & multiple 61 SJ, and implies disorders Sherman system MX, affective Cohen inhibition of AA, behavioural Journal Moustafa anxiety. the to on contribute action arousal Anxiolytic (2000). of JA types Gray & N, McNaughton drinking (2005) behaviors relief DM Donovan and & reward GA, Marlatt among A response pharmacotherapy Heinz Lem´enager testing 43 T, Neuropsychopharmacology H, trial phenotypes. Nakovics controlled S, a of Hoffmann dependence: influence alcohol CR, The Roos 29 girls: Disorders K, adolescent Eating Mann of in Journal eating International dysfunctional punishment. and and reward abuse 455-462. to Alcohol sensitivity expectancy in (2001). alcohol differences S in individual Dawe meaning & and measurement NJ, of Loxton Issues dwarves: seven 105 the bulletin of Psychological search research. Addictive In and of (1989). expectancies Psychology BC undergraduates. disinhibition Leigh in Alcohol-induced drinking (2009). problem JR of Volpicelli 23 predictors Behaviors & prospective LA, as Taylor control impaired consequences: BA, alcohol-related Toll negative RF, and 34 Positive Leeman Adolesc (2011). J ME drinking. Patrick past & with C, 35 Neighbors associations Neuropsychopharmacology JL, addiction. Maggs of CM, 27 Neurocircuitry Lee Res (2010). Exp ND Volkow Clin & Alcohol in GF, beyond. use Koob and and allostasis substance Personality Alcoholism: gender. and (2003). and Personality GF activation Koob (2004). behavioural of GD role Wilson 37 moderating & Differences and Individual predictive II, The Kharchenko youths: HR, Russian determined Slobodskaya Genetically (2007). GG, M 318 Knyazev Ullsperger Science & errors. DY, Cramon from von learning pre- J, in Hennig as clinically M, differences style Reuter in maternal J, Neumann and 42 attention TA, sensitivity Differences Klein selective Reinforcement Individual of (2007). and Personality JT course psychopathology. Mitchell of Time & 46 dictors (2008). RO, Ther Nelson-Gray Res TT Behav NA, Wells study. Kimbrel tracking & eye AJ, an adults: Ellis young CG, depressed Beevers JL, Kellough ulodpress. Guilford . : 2389-2403. : 553. : 225-234. : 827-843. : eas rvnin aneac taeisi h ramn faddictive of treatment the in strategies Maintenance prevention: Relapse 361. : 891-899. : : 87-94. 1642-1645. 14 : 12294-12304. : 1238-1243. : tal. et , 1139-1149. : 161-176. : 1321-1326. : 21) rcso eiiein medicine Precision (2018). 232-243. : tal. et , 102-115. 21) ah AM- Raphe (2014). : 217-238. : 126. : Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. yuaR oi 21) ri psiim sascae ihicesdsniiiyt eaiefeedback negative to sensitivity increased 16 with Neurosci associated Behav is Affect ”pessimism” Cogn 5-HT, Trait rats. (2016). the in P Popik of & paradigm. stimulation R, interpretation 24 pharmacological Rygula ambiguous-cue Neuropsychopharmacology of the acute College in of European rats the effects of of bias 1103-1111. The journal judgement the (2014). cognitive : the neuropsychopharmacology P on European Popik systems DA & and J, NA Papciak 95 R, sensitivity Rev abnormal Rygula model Biobehav to Neurosci rodents depression. Using (2018). in A feedback Kozub & to R, Drozd 5-HT K, Noworyta-Sokolowska Orbitofrontal R, or Rygula Amygdala Selective of 25 Effects Cortex JW Outcomes: Cereb Dalley Punishing Depletion. J, and Xia Rewarding GJ, of negative Cockcroft Anticipation misleading RN, in to Cardinal rats HF, 234 Clarke male (Berl) R, of Psychopharmacology Rygula sensitivity task. decreases reversal-learning Ketamine probabilistic (2017). a 22 R in Rygula biology feedback & Addiction construct E, naltrexone. Bollen drink: and M, to Rychlik acamprosate temptation of from dimensions benefit relief differential and predicting Reward 1528-1539. in (2017). K role Witkiewitz and Theory & validity Incentive-Sensitization K, an Mann - CR, Craving Roos Drug 18 of Rev Basis Res Neural Brain The Addiction. (1993). of KC Berridge attributional & The TE, (1982). 6 ME Robinson research Seligman & and GI, therapy Metalsky LY, Cognitive Abramson questionnaire. C, style Baeyer Von errors A, prediction Semmel Dopamine-dependent C, 442 (2006). Peterson Nature CD Frith humans. & in RJ, behaviour Dolan reward-seeking G, underpin Flandin B, activation. Seymour parietal M, and Pessiglione methamphetamine- prefrontal by in making decrease Decision 53 error-rate-independent (2003). neural Psychiatry with MA affect Schuckit Biol associated & predictability is GG, outcome Brown subjects 15 and L, dependent Neuroimage Frank rate decision-making. N, Error Hozack during MP, (2002). cingulate Paulus GG anterior disinhibition: and Brown of cortex & sign prefrontal L, behavioural in Frank a activation 32 N, as behaviors Hozack use Addictive MP, Alcohol personality. Paulus (2007). of R model Torrubia Gray’s & JA 78 Ambiguous-Cue B, from al] Molinuevo the Evidence [et R, Using Crawley Aguilar Rats N Y, Jacqueline in Pardo board, Bias editorial Judgement 22. / alcohol 57 Cognitive neuroscience in 51-59 Measuring in trends 57 (2017). time protocols on Current R Test. effects Rygula Interpretation cohort & and period, J, Sucht. Age, Papciak population. (2010). adult S German Mueller drinkers. & the reward D, in and Piontek consumption relief L, Kraus distinguish of A, to validation Pabst and attempt Development an (2006). (AMDS): W 41 Brink Scale den Alcohol Drinking Van Alcohol for & G, Motives drinking, Schippers Amsterdam students’ R, the Verheul university M, 46 for Koeter Differences risk W, Individual BAS Ooteman and Distinguishing Personality (2009). behaviors. MC Through gambling Watt and Students 19 & smoking, College Behaviors SH, First-Year Addictive Stewart of in RM, Psychology Patterns O’Connor Drinking. Alcohol for Predicting Reasons (2005). and CR Systems Motivational Colder & RM, O’Connor : : 65-74. 284-292. : 3064-3076. : 247-291. : 516-526. 15 : : 336-346. 287-299. : 1042-1045. tal. et , : 2398-2403. 21) oeo eta Serotonin Central of Role (2015). : 514-519. : 613-620. : 10-20. : 836-846. : 9 : : Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. oorpsi otxsbaigdmnn rsbriaemaig.Mmr onto 6 and Cognition homophones & of Memory encoding meanings. semantic subordinate Multiple or (1978). dominant JH biasing the Bresnick contexts & moderates in JP, students. homographs Green system college NT, approach Warren in Behavioral RE, outcomes Warren alcohol (2011). 72 and CR Drugs system Colder Alcohol inhibition Stud & behavioral J the JP, relapse between Read and association lapse, RM, prospective abstinence, O’Connor in attributions JD, of 19 Wardell Behav role The Addict treatment. (1994). abuse EH Barrington substance following & FG, Castro BMC MA, (Germany). Walton Saxony and Brandenburg 9 in students Res medical Serv and Health physicians Elec- among G and substances D, illegal Rate Mittag and Heart S, on Twork Nonreward K, Frustrative Voigt and Incentive Probabilistic Monetary 20 (2000). Psychophysiology of Activity. TW Effects trodermal possible The Robbins lesions: (1983). lobe & DT temporal 38 CE, Tranel or Neuropsychologia frontal Polkey medication. or dopaminergic disease BA, Parkinson’s of Summers with effects patients adverse BJ, in deficits Sahakian reversal Depression: and RD, of 40 learning Models Rogers Neurosci Preclinical Behav R, Top in Curr Swainson Shifts Treatments. models. Translational Improved (2018). major for ESJ the Biomarkers Robinson of for & Implications contributions JK, theory: Hinchcliffe Optimism. addiction C, Unrealistic in Slaney place of Craving’s 34 Stock (2010). Rev Taking Biobehav HJ (2013). Neurosci Aubin ND & MD, Weinstein Skinner in & pleasure EA, of 8 Waters expectation Sci Psychol WM, enhances reality. Perspect Dopamine Klein of (2009). JA, face RJ Dolan the Shepperd & in J, maintained 19 Fan Biol is AC, Curr Brown optimism humans. T, unrealistic Shiner How an T, (2011). enhances Sharot RJ dopamine Dolan How 14 & (2012). neuroscience CW, RJ Nature Korn Dolan T, & 22 Sharot R, Biol Chowdhury Curr of humans. CW, in analysis Korn bias content M, optimism The Guitart-Masip 27 style: T, therapy and Sharot explanatory research Assessing Behaviour Questionnaire. (1989). Style ME interpretation Attributional 509. an Seligman the of and & 7 assessment explanations neuroscience C, verbatim Indirect human Castellon (2013). in Frontiers P P, correlates. Kanske Schulman behavioral & and C, neurophysiological Kuehner humans: look B, in quick Vollmayr bias a M, back, Wessa look long A, A Schick health: 44 physical and Research 73 emotion optimism Psychiatric Psychologist Dispositional facial of American (2018). of Journal forward. CS Perception controls. Carver (2010). and & CA depression MF, Jr Scheier unipolar Zarate or & bipolar DA, of Luckenbaugh with BA, role adults Rich the in J, learning: Baumann reinforcement 4 KL, of Neurodynamics Schaefer models Cognitive Computational signal. reward (2010). a J-M alters Fellous as deficiency & dopamine Serotonin MJ, Frank (2015). RD, MG Samson Caron & 53 Psychoneuroendocrinology WC, experience. Wetsel life early A, adverse 81. of Iyer consequences HL, long-term the Tran to susceptibility RM, Rodriguiz BD, Sachs : 219. : 2077-2080. : : 1475-1479. 395-411. : 1028-1036. : 606-623. blA og ,Kee J Klewer R, Voigt A, ¨ obel : 1082. : 1477-1481. : 652-657. 16 : 319-331. : tal. et , 91-105. : 20) osmto fachl cigarettes alcohol, of Consumption (2009). 596-612. : 169-193. : 364-371. : 1229-1235. : 272. : 505- : 69- Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. igi h iighmnban eiwo eei errcpo mgn fmnaiegcssesin systems monoaminergic of imaging bin- neuroreceptor radioligand genetic on on polymorphisms review genetic A of brain: effects 53 human advances the Neuroimage rapid- living psychiatry. Imaging neuroscience and the (2010). and conventional in N Brain ding Praschak-Rieder of & task. Comparison M, learning (2020). Willeit reversal ES probabilistic Robinson rodent & a 4 JR, in Mellor antidepressants JP, acting Grogan 92 MP, Review Psychological Wilkinson emotion. and motivation achievement of theory 548-573. attributional An (1985). B Weiner : 2398212820907177. : 878-892. 17 : Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 18 Posted on Authorea 15 Mar 2021 — The copyright holder is the author/funder. All rights reserved. No reuse without permission. — https://doi.org/10.22541/au.161579797.70578236/v1 — This a preprint and has not been peer reviewed. Data may be preliminary. 19