Transitionality in addiction: A “temporal continuum” hypotheses involving the aberrant motivation, the hedonic dysregulation, and the aberrant learning (2016)

Med Hypotheses. 2016 Aug;93:62-70. doi: 10.1016/j.mehy.2016.05.015.

Patrono E1, Gasbarri A2, Tomaz C3, Nishijo H4.

Article Outline

  1. Introduction
    1. The “incentive-sensitization” theory
    2. The “hedonic dysregulation” theory
    3. The “habit-based learning” theory
  2. A “temporal continuum” hypotheses involving the aberrant motivation, the hedonic dysregulation, and the aberrant learning
  3. Neuro-bio-physiological background of drug addiction “temporal continuum” hypotheses
  4. The neural basis of a drug motivated behavior
  5. The neural basis of a habit-learning drug behavior
  6. The legitimacy of the term “food addiction”
  7. The neural basis of food addiction
  8. Electrophysiological basis of food-directed behavior
  9. A new parallel addictive behavior
  10. Conclusions
  11. Authors and contributors
  12. Conflicts of interest
  13. References

 

 

  

Abstract

 

 

Addiction is a chronic compulsion and relapsing disorder. It involves several brain areas and circuits, which encode vary functions such as reward, motivation, and memory. Drug addiction is defined as a “pathological pattern of use of a substance”, characterized by the loss of control on drug-taking-related behaviors, the pursuance of those behaviors even in the presence of negative consequences, and a strong motivated activity to assume substances. Three different theories guide experimental research on drug addiction. Each of these theories consider singles features, such as an aberrant motivation, a hedonic dysregulation, and an aberrant habit learning as the main actor to explain the entire process of the addictive behaviors. The major goal of this study is to present a new hypotheses of transitionality from a controlled use to abuse of addictive substances trough the overview of the three different theories, considering all the single features of each single theory together on the same “temporal continuum” from use to abuse of addictive substances. Recently, it has been suggested that common neural systems may be activated by natural and pharmacological stimuli, raising the hypotheses that binge-eating disorders could be considered as addictive behaviors. The second goal of this study is to present evidences in order to highlight a possible psycho-bio-physiological superimposition between drug and “food addiction”. Finally, interesting questions are brought up starting from last findings about a theoretical/psycho-bio-physiological superimposition between drug and “food addiction” and their possibly same transitionality along the same “temporal continuum” from use to abuse of addictive substances in order to investigate new therapeutic strategies based on new therapeutic strategies based on the individual moments characterizing the transition from the voluntary intake of substances to the maladaptive addictive behavio 

 

 

Keywords:

Drug/food addiction, Motivation, Habit learning, Hedonic dysregulation, Transitionality, Reward system

 

  

 

Introduction

 

 

Addiction, from the Latin “addictus” (“slave to debt” or “subjugate”), is a chronic compulsion and relapsing disorder that affects people more psychologically than physically. It is a chronic condition involving several brain areas and circuits, which encode several functions such as reward, motivation and memory. An addict gradually focuses most of his energy on the searching for, finding, and subsequently obtaining and using substances of abuse. This happens even in spite of illness, failures in life and disrupted relationships.

 

 

Recently, addiction was defined in DSM-V as a “pathological pattern of use of a substance” characterized by the loss of control on drug-taking-related behaviors, the pursuance of those behaviors even in the presence of negative consequences, and a strong motivated activity to assume substances [1]. The loss of control, the pursuance, and strong motivated activity to assume substances can be analyzed and conceptualized from psychological to biological-molecular level.

Three different theories guide experimental research on drug addiction [[2], [3], [4]]. Each of these theories consider singles features, such as an aberrant motivation [2], a hedonic dysregulation [3], and an aberrant habit learning [4] as the main actor to explain the entire process of the addictive behaviors. The major goal of this study is to present a new hypotheses of transitionality from a controlled use to abuse of addictive substances trough the overview of the three different theories, considering all the single features of each single theory together on the same “temporal continuum” from use to abuse of addictive substances.

Here we overview three major psychological hypotheses that try to explain the passage from casual use to abuse of pharmacological substances: the incentive-sensitization theory, the hedonic dysregulation theory, and the habit-based learning theory

 

 

  

The “incentive-sensitization” theory

 

 

In accordance with this theory, repeated drugs of abuse exposition triggers “sensitivity” in the brain making them more attractive or desirables. This can lead to a commitment to obtain drugs even in shortage of drug-induced delight, explaining the phenomenon of relapse.   

In psychology, motivation is generally considered the internal condition that guides and modulates the behavior of an individual, toward a goal. The psychological processes guiding addiction behavior can be studied through motivational notions, understanding which brain systems are involved. Compulsive drug seeking/taking behavior and relapse (throughout exposure to stimuli associated with the substance or due to stress) are attributable to a change in the motivational system and the appetitive phase (wanting). Berridge and Robinson explained this phenomenon with the “incentive-sensitization theory” [2]. They suggest that chronic use of a drug leads to increasing neurological change within the reward system, sensitizing the system to drugs and associated stimuli. The enhancement of drug-stimuli pairings increases the incentive value of the stimuli, producing a “transitionality” in drug users that want drugs, even though they don’t get the like from them [5] (Fig. 1). Fig. 1 shows how liking and wanting can follow different psychological/brain pathways through the difference in memory comparison. Although this theory explains many aspects of human addiction, such as the excessive search for a drug, intense craving, and relapse, it cannot solely explain the main feature of drug addiction: the inability of addicts to regulate or stop the use of a drug, despite negative consequences and the self-destructive nature of its prolonged use. Drug addiction is a complex psychopathology characterized, at least partly, by drug-induced pleasure, drug-associated memories, and drug-related emotional traits that are connected to the “liking” stimuli [[6], [7]]. An imbalance of both “wanting” (e.g. incentive-sensitization) and “liking” can have a role in the induction of addictive behaviors [8]. However, even though this theory does not reject drug-induced pleasure, withdrawal, or habits as reasons for the drug seeking/taking behavior, it hypothesizes that other factors, such as a sensitized wanting, could better explain compulsion and relapse in addiction.

Thumbnail image of Fig. 1. Opens large image

Fig. 1

Incentive salience model of incentive motivation. “Liking” and “wanting” correspond to separate psychological and neurological systems. Conditioned stimuli (CS) and unconditioned stimuli (US) produce a memory comparison. DA projections to the NAc and neostriatum generate wanting (incentive-salience aspects of motivation). Conversely, DA does not project directly to the NAc and neostriatum relatively to liking (hedonia) and to associative-learning of rewards. Further cognitive elaborations are required for personal evaluation of pleasure and motivation, in order to have consciousness of emotions underlying “liking” and “wanting”.

View Large Image | View Hi-Res Image | Download PowerPoint Slide

 

 

The “hedonic dysregulation” theory

 

This theory suggests that the spiral into addiction occurs by passing through three stages: “preoccupation/anticipation”, “binge/intoxication”, and “withdrawal/negative effect” [9].   

The role of “sensitization” in addiction has been explained as a smooth move to an “incentive-salience” state. Initial use is promoted by the hedonically rewarding properties of the drug, such as a euphoric high, while addictive use is hypothesized to grow by “negative reinforcement” [10]. Negative reinforcement is a process by which discharge of aversive stimuli, such as a negative emotional state of withdrawal, increases the number of drug intake [3]. In order to avoid dysphoria and discomfort, drug users take pharmacological substances [11]. However, drug users proceed from casual use to addiction, and the factors promoting “transitionality” in drug use are hypothesized to shift from impulsivity in the early periods, to compulsivity in last periods. Craving (an intense and powerful desire) has a crucial role in addiction, and is considered a part of the three components: “preoccupation/anticipation”, “binge/intoxication”, and “withdrawal/negative effect” [10]. The three stages are interactive with each other, deepening in intense, dysregulating the hedonic homeostasis of reward system, and finally bringing the user to addiction [[3], [10]] (Fig. 2). Fig. 2 describes the top–down addiction cycle in which the “preoccupation/anticipation” stage as an overwhelming urge to use drugs even if his or her life are plenty of responsibilities and human relationships. The “binge/intoxication” stage specifies the necessity of big amounts of drugs in order to experience the same level of hedonic effects. “Withdrawal/negative effect” refers to the psycho-physical effects induced by the absence of a continuous drug use, that need medical care (e.g. pharmacological use of methadone).

Thumbnail image of Fig. 2. Opens large image

Fig. 2

Spiralling in a top–down vicious circle. Diagram describes the top–down addiction cycle. Craving is crucially involved in the process where a occasional drug use can transitionally lead to abuse, and subsequently to the relapse. This is explained through three factors: “preoccupation/anticipation”, “binge/intoxication”, and “withdrawal/negative” effect. These three stages interact with each other, becoming more intense, dysregulating the hedonic homeostasis of the reward system, and leading to the pathological state known as addiction.

View Large Image | View Hi-Res Image | Download PowerPoint Slide

The hedonic dysregulation theory elucidates the passage from use to abuse of drugs such as a “top–down vicious circle”, considering the key role of a sort of imbalance in hedonic status of drug users [3]. However, the theory cannot solely explain the role of other main features of drug addiction such as an abnormal sensitization to the substance and the instrumental behaviors to obtain the substance. The mesolimbic reward circuit was originally believed to encode simply the hedonic impact related to drug experiences. Recently, it is considered that this circuit is functionally more complex, encoding attention, expectancy of reward, and incentive motivation [12].

 

 

 

   

The “habit-based learning” theory 

 

 

 

In the real world, drug users need to stock up on drugs where normally drugs are not easily available. Neuroscience research has placed special emphasis on this fact [13]. This concept led to the establishment of an animal model of drug-seeking/taking behavior where the sensitivity is due to the relationship between instrumental behavior and drug administration. In fact, drug-associated stimuli with a strong effect on behaviors does play a key role in addiction development [[14], [15]]. Because the drug-seeking behavior occurs before the drug infusion, it has been shown that drug-seeking behavior is not affected by any pharmacological effects of the drug [16]. The fact that the drug seeking behavior can still be present when the drug are not delivered led to the argument that drug-seeking behavior depends instead on the brief presentation of “drug-associated cues”. However, drug-seeking/taking behavior depends not only on direct cues, but also on highly complex cognitive processes such as attention, expectancy of reward, disconfirmation of reward expectancy, associative emotional memories, instrumental learning, and incentive motivation. Further, other cognitive processes, such as the evaluation of contexts in which drug-associated-cues are presented [12]. The animal model of drug-seeking/taking behavior provides a chance to study the brain mechanisms of “cue-associated” drug seeking. Furthermore, it is also useful in addressing new potential treatments that would decrease cue-associated drug seeking. The seeking/taking drug behavior and compulsive drug intake, in spite of adverse consequences are the behavioral features that define a “transitionality” idea in drug addiction from use to abuse of substances. When desire becomes a need, the subject acts out a different kind of behavior that leads him or her to take substances. “Goal-directed behavior” and “habit learning” perform two ways of “instrumental learning”: the first way is rapidly acquired and tuned by the resulting outcomes; the second way is more intentional, and provoked by antecedent stimuli more than by their aftermaths [17]. The psychobiology of drug addiction identifies a “transitionality” in these behaviors, considering the first one as simply aberrant, and the second one as pathological.   

Everitt considers drug addiction the final stage of several transitional steps from the initial and controlled use of a substance [[13], [18], [19]] (Fig. 3). Fig. 3 describes the following steps through the drug addiction. When the substance is taken voluntarily for its incentive effect, seeking-behavior progressively becomes a “habit”, through a gradual loss of control. Thus, the stimulus–response mechanism plays a crucial role in the maintenance of an instrumental behavior. Finally, the capacity of the stimulus (substance) to act as reinforcement (conditioned reinforcer) exerts a kind of control over the seeking/taking behavior. Thus, drug addiction may start as a “goal-directed behavior”; later, with the maintenance of the “instrumental behavior”, it could turn into a “habitual behavior”, inducing a form of learning based on the habit (habit-based learning) [[13], [16], [18]].

Thumbnail image of Fig. 3. Opens large image

Fig. 3

Following steps from use to abuse of substances. According to Everitt and colleagues, drug addiction is a series of steps that are followed by an initial, voluntary and emotionally activating use of addictive substances up to a loss of control on the consumption of the same substances through a change of the role of conditioned reinforcer. Specifically, when the substance is taken voluntarily for its incentive effect, seeking-behavior progressively becomes a “habit”, through a gradual loss of control. Thus, the stimulus–response mechanism plays a crucial role in the maintenance of an instrumental behavior. Finally, the capacity of the stimulus (substance) to act as reinforcement (conditioned reinforcer) exerts a kind of control over the seeking/taking behavior.

View Large Image | View Hi-Res Image | Download PowerPoint Slide

 

 

A “temporal continuum” hypotheses involving the aberrant motivation, the hedonic dysregulation, and the aberrant learning 

 

Three major theories guide the experimental research in the field of drug addiction. The incentive-sensitization theory states that “aberrant motivation” to seek and take drugs could characterize addiction, and considers that “wanting” plays a major role in addiction development. The hedonic dysregulation theory defines a top–down spiraling, from use to abuse of drugs, and focuses on the role of dysregulation in hedonic homeostasis, taking into account a crucial role of a “liking” dysregulation. The habit-based learning theory highlights the role of an instrumental learning behavior that becomes habit, in order to explain the complex use/abuse transition in the drug seeking/taking behavior, and places equal weight on the roles of both “liking” and “wanting”.   

 

This study aims to evaluate the three major theories of drug addiction from a new perspective of unity, through the theoretical hypotheses of a unique “temporal continuum” in which an “aberrant motivation”, a “hedonic dysregulation”, and an “aberrant learning” lie together in order to explain the transition from an occasional use to abuse of drugs (Fig. 4). Fig. 4 shows a hypothetical time-line in which the three major features are defined as a single “temporal continuum” from the first meet with the drugs to the addiction itself. A large body of literature assessed very well the role of each one of the three theories in drug addiction. Moreover, it has been defined that a progressive shift occurs from habit-driven to motivated-driven drug-seeking/taking behavior in which a hedonic dysregulation is firstly induced during habit learning and continues with the aberrant motivation to use drugs. The Pavlovian-instrumental transfer (PIT) design takes into account two conditions: (1) the Pavlovian processes that define sensitivity to the eventuality between a stimulus (S) and the reinforcers (R); and (2) the instrumental behaviors sensitive to the eventuality between active responses (R), and outcomes (O) [[20], [21]]. Neuro-bio-physiologically, this corresponds to a progressive shift from ventral to dorsal striatal control over drug-seeking/taking behavior [12]. Hence, it is possible to consider a unique “temporal continuum” in which (1) a progressively aberrant “habit-learning” occurs during casual drug use, wherein a “hedonic dysregulation” is activated and (2) lead to a progressively aberrant “salience-incentivation” inducing the drug-taking behavior. However, to our knowledge, there are no evidences of a unitary vision of the three theories through the “temporal continuum” hypotheses. Several human and animal studies have demonstrated that the time of reward has a strong role in reward processing [[22], [23]]. Furthermore, time windows and “reward rates” are of crucial importance for conditioning, and DA neurons are crucially involved in the processing of temporal information about the rewards. At a clinical level, this would also help to understand how and when to intervene along the temporal continuum from occasional use to abuse of pharmacological substances, and to produce new therapeutic strategies in order to avoid the insurgency of the pathological drug-seeking/taking behavior. Finally, motivation, hedonic dysregulation, and habit-based learning can be considered singular parts of a unique and complex drug-seeking/taking behavior.

Thumbnail image of Fig. 4. Opens large image

Fig. 4

Hypothetical timeline of the “temporal continuum” hypotheses. Diagram describing a hypothetical time-line in which the three major features are defined as a single “temporal continuum” from the first meet with the drugs to the addiction. During this time, neurobehavioral changes act on the hedonic dysregulation and on the representation of the value of the drug inducing a habit-learning, and drastically losing the control over the drug intake.

View Large Image | View Hi-Res Image | Download PowerPoint Slide

 

 

 

   

Neuro-bio-physiological background of drug addiction “temporal continuum” hypotheses 

 

Besides the behavioral criteria described above, several studies have drawn a connection between neural circuits activated in the drug-seeking/taking behavior. It is important to note that drug abuse activates several “cortico-subcortical” brain areas and neurotransmission circuits that are involved in the “drug-reinforcement”. In order to confirm the hypotheses that the three features enhanced in each single theory can lie in a single “temporal continuum” describing all together the passage from use to abuse of substances, neural basis of a drug-motivated behavior and a drug-habit-learned behavior will be revise

 

 

 

 

 

The neural basis of a drug motivated behavior

 

Different studies in the neurobiology of addiction uphold the concept that dopamine (DA) transmission plays an important role in motivational control. The most clearly established mechanism in drug intake is the activation of the DA-associated link in brain reward circuitry [[24], [25], [26]]. The major sites of these neuroplastic changes are thought to be the mesolimbic and nigrostriatal DA-ergic circuits. It has been demonstrated that enhanced DA-ergic transmission in Nucleus Accumbens (NAc) mediates the drug addiction-related rewarding/reinforcing effects [[4], [11], [27], [28], [29]]. The NAc contains two functionally distinct sub-nuclei, termed the “shell” and the “core”. Ventral Tegmental Area (VTA) and NAc shell have mutual DA-ergic innervations that are important in the motivational salience modulation and concur to the formation of learned associations between motivate events and contingent environmental perceptions [30]. Neurochemical lesions of the NAc DA-ergic pathways or receptor-blocking drugs reduces wanting to eat, but liking-related facial expressions for the same reward are not reduced [[5], [31], [32]]. Furthermore, extracellular DA in the NAc is increased by opiates [27] and incentive motivational system in mesolimbic DA-ergic in drug-seeking behavior is reinstates by drug priming [5]. Besides, NAc shell and VTA depletions abolish the reactivation of an extinguished CPP (Conditioned Place Preference) by morphine priming [33], indicating that DA projections from the VTA throughout the limbic system are related to a motivationally relevant event [[5], [34]]. Adaptive behavioral responses to the motivational situation occur under DA release, inducing cellular changes that establish learned associations with the event [35]. By contrast, in a repeated drug administration, DA release is no longer induced by a particular event, as a motivational event becomes familiar by repeated exposure [36]. For this reason, the behavioral outcomes still “goal-directed” and “well learned”, making not necessary further DA-induced neuroplastic changes.   

In contrast, the NAc “core” seems to be a crucial site that mediates the learned behaviors expression responding to stimuli that predict motivationally relevant events [[30], [37], [38], [39]]. Moreover, the expression of adaptive behaviors are likely modulated by DA release in NAc core during responses to stimuli predicting a rewarding event [[40], [41]]. In sum, DA might have two functions and might be crucial in “transitionality” from occasional drug use to abuse. The first alarm the organism to the apparition of new salient stimuli, and after induces learning neuroplasticity. The second is to alert the organism to the imminent apparition of an accustomed relevant event, and motivated on the basis of learned associations previously made through environmental stimuli-event prediction [42]. Finally, a series of parallel cortico–striato–pallido–cortical loops have been defined where the ventral striatum (VS), including NAc core is related to emotional learning; and the dorsal striatum (DS), including NAc shell is related to cognitive and motor functions [[43], [44]].

 

 

 

   

The neural basis of a habit-learning drug behavior 

 

 

 

Accumulating evidences suggest that basolateral amygdala (BLA) and the NAc core have a crucial role in separable neurochemical mechanisms underling drug-seeking behavior preserved by conditioned reinforcers [[21], [45], [46], [47], [48]]. The BLA complex performs fundamental roles in memory formation and storage linked with emotional events [[49], [50]]. Moreover, it is involved in appetitive (positive) conditioning [51]. Distinct neurons respond to both positive and negative stimuli, but they do not group into clear anatomical nuclei [52]. Studies report that infusions in BLA of DA receptor antagonists impeded a “CS-induced reinstatement” of after-extinction outcomes [53]. This could mean a key role of DA-ergic transmission in the BLA in drug-seeking/taking behavior. Consistent with these observations, during the response-dependent presentation of conditioned stimuli, DA efflux from NAc core was not increased in a reinstatement procedure [[38], [54]], whereas glutamate (GLU) efflux was increased in the NAc core of animals during active cocaine-seeking [55]. Finally, a combined “cues + drug-primed” reinstatement conditions showed that increased DA and GLU efflux in the medial prefrontal Cortex (mpFC) and NAc plays a role in promoting reinstatement, and might be an important mediator of “transitionality” in drug-seeking behavior, primed by “multiple relapse triggers” [56]. Taken together, these findings suggest that the transition from use to abuse in drug-seeking/taking behavior could depend on the “drug-associated conditioned reinforcers”, which in turn, may depend on DA-ergic transmission in the BLA and GLU-ergic transmission in the NAc core, and together in the mpFC.    

This raises the question of whether these selective neurochemical transmissions in the BLA and NAc core are parts of a brain subsystem within “limbic cortical-ventral striato-pallidal” circuitry [57]. In part, because the technique of the so-called “disconnection”, DS and VS interact with each other serially, in a wide range of functional settings, such as PIT on goal-directed behavior [21]. For long time, the VS has been suggested to keep in connection emotion, motivation, and action thanks to its major connections between structures such as the BLA and the orbitofrontal cortex (oFC) [[21], [57], [58]]. The NAc core is important in Pavlovian conditioning, as well as during interactions in “Pavlovian-instrumental” learning mechanisms related to involuntary behavior [[21], [38], [45]]. Conversely, it has been defined that DS has a role in cognitive and motor functions, giving a neurobiological base for both goal-directed and habitual control of “instrumental learning” [[59], [60], [61], [62]]. Pavlovian-instrumental learning sequential steps could be crucially important in the transitionality from occasional drug use to abuse, that could also involve compulsive drug-seeking/taking behavior [13].

Recently, several experimental and functional observations support the idea of common neural circuits forming a distinct entity into the basal forebrain, termed the “extended amygdala”. This circuit may be delegated to act on the motivational, emotional, and habitual effects of drug addiction [[63], [64], [65], [66]]. The extended amygdala is comprised of several basal forebrain structures such as the bed nucleus of the stria terminalis (BNST), the central medial amygdala (CeA), and the NAc shell [[63], [64]]. These structures have similarities in morphology, immunohistochemistry, and connectivity [[65], [66]], and they receive afferent connections from limbic structures such as the hippocampus (HP), and BLA. Extended amygdala has key parts that include neurotransmission systems associated with the “positive reinforcing effects” of drugs of abuse, and other major structures related to brain stress systems and associated with the “negative reinforcing effects” of drug addiction [[63], [67]]. Thus, further studies could investigate the role of extended amygdala in the transitionality from use to abuse of drugs.

 

 

 

   

A new parallel addictive behavior 

 

 

 

Over the past decades, the way of eating has changed dramatically. Among the historical changes that have characterized the last century, Western Countries are assisting to a set of changes in food culture, which have revealed a tendency to consume more frequently and more heavily those foodstuffs once considered rare and valuable. The prevailing tendency to eat more than necessary, often accompanied by significant imbalances between the various components of the diet, has led to a higher incidence of eating disorders (ED). More recently, the hypotheses that several of the same brain systems and neurotransmission circuits are involved in the rewarding effects related to foods and drugs has been suggested. It is conceivable the switching from the same neural systems in food and drugs [[68], [69], [70]], raising the hypotheses that binge-eating disorders could be considered as addictive behaviors. Here, we revised studies showing the possibility to study the key features of eating disorders, such as compulsive eating, with the paradigms used in drug addiction pre-clinical research.

 

 

 

 

 

 

   

The legitimacy of the term “food addiction”

 

 

 

In the field of the psychobiology of addiction, the number of studies about dependence from both pharmacological and natural substances has significantly increased in the last years. Recently, behavioral/physiological research on addiction has moved the focus on the possibility of different forms of addiction to various stimuli, such as chocolate, sex and gambling [[71], [72], [73], [74]]. On the other hand, some studies pointed out some critical issues about the variety of certain substances addictive potential and the necessity to define specific features of those addictive foods [75]. However, it was observed that in some circumstances, the powerful capabilities of these reinforcing stimuli can lead to behavioral changes (sensitization of brain reward system, increased motor response and motivation) and neurochemical changes (mesolimbic DA-ergic system) similar to those induced by substance abuse [[76], [77], [78]]. Experimental models have been created to study the shift from use to abuse of different kinds of substances [[71], [77], [79], [80], [81], [82]]. In particular, the excessive consumption of foods rich in sugar has contributed, together with other factors, to an increase of cases of obesity [77].    

Compulsive eating, is very similar to compulsive drug intake [78], and compulsive eating might be considered an “addiction” in its own right. Studies in humans and laboratory animals showed that, aside to energy balance, eating behavior is regulated by factors unrelated to metabolic control and data from clinical studies suggest that some over-eaters can develop addictive-like behaviors when they consume pleasurable foods [[26], [83]]. It has been proposed that overeating of palatable food may produce long-term neuroadaptations in the reward and stress networks of the brain [[10], [84]], similar to those produced by long-term drug abuse [26]. Taken together, these evidences suggest that compulsive eating, as well as compulsive drug-seeking can be explained using the same three major theories driving the experimental research on drug addiction, thus exploring the possibility of a sort of “transitionality” from a moderate use of pleasurable foodstuffs to their abuse.

Recent evidence from mice and monkeys suggest the possibility of producing animal models of eating disorders [[71], [72], [77], [85], [86], [87]]. It has been shown that rats with the possibility to assume a calorie-free saccharin solution or to self-administer intravenous cocaine infusions, they irrefutably chose the former solution rather than the second one [77]. This suggests how the macro-nutrients in pleasurable food can activate brain reward systems independently of their caloric load [78]. Furthermore, pleasurable foods can activate brain neurotransmission systems related to reward, motivation, and decision making [69]. Highly palatable foods induce long-lasting memories in non-human-primate models of chocolate preference [86], and the sudden food-reward absence induces anxiety-like behaviors (i.e., exploration), without changes in the levels of stress hormone cortisol [87]. Relying on these findings, eating behaviors related to the learning of food-associated cues seem to be important in the incidence and/or relapse of eating disorders. Finally, since the main features of drug addiction, such as compulsive seeking-behavior and relapse may be reproduced using several animal models, it can be considered the possibility to study food addiction using the animal models that previously defined the main features of drug addiction.

 

 

 

   

The neural basis of food addiction 

 

 

 

Besides the behavioral criteria described above, different studies focused on the neurobiology of addiction also support the idea that overconsumption of certain foods parallels drug addiction [[26], [68], [69], [70], [71], [88]]. Under certain circumstances, the potent rewarding capacity of palatable food may lead to behavioral/neurochemical changes similar to those produced by drug abuse [[26], [77]].    

The activation of the DA-containing link in brain reward circuitry is the most clear and superimposable defined in food and drug-seeking behavior [[25], [26], [69]]. Particularly, DA release seems to correlate with subjective reward from both drug and food use in humans [[25], [69]]. Repeated mesolimbic DA stimulation induced by expositions to addictive drugs produces brain plastic changes that result in compulsive drug-seeking. In a similar way, a repeated palatable foods exposition can induce compulsive food consumption using the same neurotransmission systems. Moreover, neuroimaging studies have revealed alterations in DA receptor expression in obese subjects that are similar to those found in drug-addicted subjects [[69], [78], [89], [90]].

Eating disorders are characterized by compulsive eating behavior, even in spite of dangerous circumstances. It has been hypothesized that a complex gene-environment interaction may be a key factor of compulsive eating behavior [[91], [92]]. Several studies have implicated DA type2 receptors (D2Rs) in the inclination to compulsive-like behaviors, as its happen in the drug addiction [[18], [93]]. Moreover, it has been demonstrate a gene-environment interaction in a mouse model compulsive chocolate-seeking/taking behavior using C57 and DBA mice in a conditioned suppression paradigm [[88], [94]]. In this study, we reproduced a compulsive eating behavior using the paradigm of conditioned suppression of a chocolate-seeking behavior [71] in order to compare the stressed C57 and DBA mice. Moreover, it has been hypothesized that low availability of accumbal D2Rs is considered a genetic risk factor in the incidence of food compulsive-seeking behavior and that the environment can induce a compulsive eating behavior altering the expression of D2Rs in the striatum. To this aim, we measured D1Rs and D2Rs expression in the striatum and D1Rs, D2Rs and NE-ergic α1 receptors (α1Rs) levels in the mpFC, respectively, by western blot [88]. We showed that exposure to a certain environmental condition (food restriction) inducing compulsive eating behavior, depends on genetic background, that is connected with a decreased availability of NAc D2Rs. Conversely, striatum D2Rs up-regulation and mpFC α1Rs down-regulation are induced during the compulsive eating behavior. These findings confirm the key role of a gene-environment interaction in the compulsive eating behavior, also supporting the idea that low availability of NAc D2Rs is a “constitutive” genetic risk factor for compulsive eating behavior. Finally, striatum D2R and mpFC α1R counteractive regulations are thought to be potential “neuroadaptive responses” paralleling with the transitionality from motivated to compulsive eating behaviors, and consequently in food addiction, as it has been hypothesized in drug addiction [[88], [94]].

 

 

 

   

Electrophysiological basis of food-directed behavior 

 

 

 

Parallel to neurobiological studies, electrophysiological studies have enlightened a highly difference in changes in the firing of striatal neurons during a motivated behavior [[95], [96], [97]]. Furthermore, it has been shown that during a sucrose-seeking behavior phasic DA responses selectively modulate the excitatory but not the inhibitory responses of accumbal neurons [98]. Thus, DA rapidly signaled doesn’t carry out accumbal global actions but selectively regulates distinct accumbal microcircuits that produce an influence on goal-directed actions. Furthermore, recordings of single neuron activity was recorded from the mesolimbic system (NAc and VTA) in an in vivo experiment in which rats were trained to lick water and/or flavored solutions [99]. The results suggested a crucial role of VTA to motivate animals in order to increase the consume of preferred food and fluids. This suggests that VTA appears to be linked to the AMY informations about the hedonic value, via the NAc shell [99]. Moreover, it has been suggested that the taste would be also encoded by the AMY based on the pleasantness of sapid chemicals [[100], [101]].    

Interestingly, it has been identified the presence of two neuronal types in the NAc [[102], [103]]: fast spiking interneurons (FSIs) and medium spiny neurons (MSNs). It has been reported that FSIs strongly inhibit MSNs, that exert a control their “spike timing” [[102], [104]], and that respond differently from MSNs to rewards [[102], [105]]. These findings suggest that FSIs and MSNs have different roles in those behaviors related to motivation and habit learning. Finally, the NAc plays an important role in the appetitive and consummatory behavior. Commonly, it was found that subpopulations of neurons in the NAc and VS respond phasically to every single characteristics of appetitive and consummatory phases [[97], [98], [99], [101]]. Since more NAc neurons are inhibited than excited during eating behavior, NAc inhibition manipulations may enhance food-seeking behavior. This not because of the general inactivation of the NAc, but because of the silencing of such neurons whose inhibit the food-seeking behavior. However, many of the same inhibited neurons driving motivated eating behavior are conversely excited during operant responding of environmental food-associated cues. It’s arguable if it is electrophysiologically possible to discriminate a dissociable role of mesolimbic structures of reward system in order to investigate a possible transitionality from a normal to compulsive eating behavior.

 

 

 

   

Conclusions 

 

 

 

A few interesting questions are brought up in light of all the converging evidences presented here, starting from the theoretical/psycho-bio-physiological conceptualizations of drug addiction, related to the three major theories driving the addiction research, to the last findings about a theoretical/psycho-bio-physiological superimposition between drug and food addiction and their transitionality form use to abuse.    

The first question is whether the three theoretical conceptualizations, the “incentive-salience theory”, the “hedonic dysregulation theory” and the “habit-based learning theory” are able to individually explain the psychopathological features of drug addiction. Alternatively, it is more likely that these three theories can be considered as parts of a unique general conceptualization that can better explain the psychopathological features of drug addiction. The hypothesis that an “aberrant motivation”, a “hedonic dysregulation”, and an “aberrant learning” can be sole features that can be included along a unique “temporal continuum” in the complex psychopathological drug-seeking/taking behavior should be considered.

The passage from occasional drug use to abuse is related to a change from a positive reinforcement to a negative one, with changes in motivational baseline [106]. Drug reward is comprised of two components: one appetitive (orienting towards food) and the other consummatory (hedonic evaluation), which are also referred to as “wanting” and “liking”, respectively. It has been explained that “wanting” and “liking” could act independently, defining a psychological and neuroanatomical separation between them [[2], [5]]. Moreover, it has been defined that craving (intense needing) and continuous neuroplastic changes are involved in the passage from use to abuse [11]. Furthermore, it has been argued that only maladaptive habit-based learning could trigger drug-seeking behavior [4]. However, these three hypotheses are able to explain singular features of the entire complex of drug addiction, such as the compulsive seeking behavior and the relapse. Alternatively, it is possible to consider a unique “temporal continuum” wherein (1) a progressively aberrant habit learning occurs during casual drug use, during which hedonic dysregulation is activated and (2) leads to a progressively aberrant “salience-incentivation” inducing the drug-taking behavior. Finally, motivation, hedonic dysregulation, and habit-based learning can be considered singular parts of a unique and complex drug-seeking/taking behavior; neuroanatomical and neurobiological evidence discussed here are in line with this hypotheses. However, although several studies have investigated how and when these three characteristics are involved in drug addiction, little is known about their possible juxtaposition in a single “temporal continuum”. Several human and animal studies have demonstrated that the time of reward has a strong role in reward processing [[22], [23]]. Furthermore, time windows and “reward rates” are of crucial importance for conditioning, and DA neurons are crucially involved in the processing of temporal information about the rewards. DA-ergic neurons in the meso-cortico-limbic system show predictive reward timing with a sensitivity induced by reward-related responses and by the instantaneity of reward probability [22]. This reinforces the hypotheses of a possible single “temporal continuum” from occasional use to compulsive use of substances, mediated by a meso-cortico-limbic DA-ergic circuit. At a clinical level, this would also help to understand how and when to intervene along the “temporal continuum” from occasional use to abuse of pharmacological substances, and to produce new therapeutic strategies in order to avoid the insurgency of the pathological drug-seeking/taking behavior. Moreover, it has been suggested that the so-called “extended amygdala circuit” may be delegated to act on the motivational, emotional, and habitual effects of drug addiction [[63], [64], [65], [66]]. Brain structures comprised in the extended amygdala have similarities in morphology, immunohistochemistry, and connectivity. Thus, further studies could investigate the role of extended amygdala in the transitionality from use to abuse of drugs [[107], [108], [109]].

A growing body of data hypothesizes the possibility of a behavioral/physiological overlap between drug and food addiction. A recent work of our group has hypothesized that mpFC Norepinephrine (NE) transmission also plays a key role in compulsive chocolate seeking/taking behavior, suggesting that mpFC NE has a role in motivated food seeking/taking behavior, regulated by mesolimbic DA-ergic transmission [71]. Moreover, it has been shown that mpFC NE enhances GABA-ergic neurotransmission via the α1 receptors [110], suggesting a crucial role of NE in the phenomenon of relapse in drug-seeking behavior [[111], [112], [113], [114], [115]]. Thus, further investigations about the role of NE in mediating interneuronal amygdaloid activity are strongly suggested, in order to better understand a possible meso-cortico-limbic pathway in the transitionality of both drug and food addiction [[116], [117], [118]].

The second question is whether the three features presented above (aberrant motivation, hedonic dysregulation and aberrant learning), and underlying drug-addicted behavior could also explain the psychopathological behavior that characterizes eating disorders. Although there are several studies about the behavioral/neurobiological overlap between drug and food addiction, little is known about the possible role of an “aberrant motivation”, a “hedonic dysregulation” and an “aberrant learning” in psychopathological behavior characterizing a possible transitionality in food addiction, from normal to compulsive eating behavior. These three theories could contribute to better understanding of the psychopathological features of eating disorders, such as the compulsive use and the relapse to the substances, which resemble characteristics of drug addiction. Thus, future works could aim to better understand the key elements characterizing the psycho-physio-pathological aspects of both drug and food addictions, such as the compulsive use and the relapse.

 

 

 

Authors and contributors    

 

 

 

EP wrote the paper. AG, CT, and HN revised the paper.    

 

 

 

Conflicts of interest    

 

 

 

The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships.    

 

 

 

Acknowledgements    

 

 

 

EP was supported by JSPS (Japan Society for Promotion of Science) Postdoctoral Fellowship for North American and European Researchers (Short-term).    

 

 

 

 

 

 

References

 

  1. American Psychiatric Association. Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disorders. 5th ed. ; 2013 (Washington, DC)
  2. Berridge, K.C. Motivational concepts in behavioral neuroscience. Physiol Behav. 2004; 81: 179–209
  3. View in Article
  4. | Crossref
  5. | PubMed
  6. | Scopus (421)
  7. View in Article
  8. | Crossref
  9. | PubMed
  10. | Scopus (1448)
  11. View in Article
  12. | Crossref
  13. | PubMed
  14. | Scopus (5)
  15. View in Article
  16. | Crossref
  17. | PubMed
  18. | Scopus (2019)
  19. View in Article
  20. | Crossref
  21. | Scopus (1)
  22. View in Article
  23. | Crossref
  24. | PubMed
  25. | Scopus (14)
  26. View in Article
  27. | Crossref
  28. | PubMed
  29. View in Article
  30. | Crossref
  31. | PubMed
  32. View in Article
  33. | Crossref
  34. | PubMed
  35. | Scopus (56)
  36. View in Article
  37. | Abstract
  38. | Full Text
  39. | Full Text PDF
  40. | PubMed
  41. | Scopus (436)
  42. View in Article
  43. | Crossref
  44. | PubMed
  45. | Scopus (88)
  46. View in Article
  47. | Crossref
  48. | Scopus (1538)
  49. View in Article
  50. | Crossref
  51. | PubMed
  52. | Scopus (0)
  53. View in Article
  54. | Crossref
  55. | PubMed
  56. | Scopus (187)
  57. View in Article
  58. | Crossref
  59. | PubMed
  60. | Scopus (459)
  61. View in Article
  62. | Crossref
  63. | PubMed
  64. | Scopus (5)
  65. View in Article
  66. | Crossref
  67. | PubMed
  68. | Scopus (447)
  69. View in Article
  70. | Abstract
  71. | Full Text
  72. | Full Text PDF
  73. | PubMed
  74. | Scopus (364)
  75. View in Article
  76. | Crossref
  77. | PubMed
  78. View in Article
  79. | Crossref
  80. | PubMed
  81. | Scopus (1143)
  82. View in Article
  83. | Crossref
  84. | PubMed
  85. | Scopus (2)
  86. View in Article
  87. | Abstract
  88. | Full Text
  89. | Full Text PDF
  90. | Scopus (15)
  91. View in Article
  92. | Crossref
  93. | PubMed
  94. | Scopus (561)
  95. View in Article
  96. | Abstract
  97. | Full Text
  98. | Full Text PDF
  99. | PubMed
  100. | Scopus (301)
  101. View in Article
  102. | Crossref
  103. | PubMed
  104. | Scopus (316)
  105. View in Article
  106. | Crossref
  107. | PubMed
  108. View in Article
  109. | Crossref
  110. | PubMed
  111. View in Article
  112. | Crossref
  113. | PubMed
  114. View in Article
  115. | Crossref
  116. | PubMed
  117. | Scopus (284)
  118. View in Article
  119. | Crossref
  120. | PubMed
  121. | Scopus (172)
  122. View in Article
  123. | Crossref
  124. | PubMed
  125. | Scopus (10)
  126. View in Article
  127. | Crossref
  128. | PubMed
  129. | Scopus (134)
  130. View in Article
  131. | Abstract
  132. | Full Text
  133. | Full Text PDF
  134. | PubMed
  135. | Scopus (224)
  136. View in Article
  137. | Crossref
  138. | PubMed
  139. | Scopus (339)
  140. View in Article
  141. | PubMed
  142. View in Article
  143. | Crossref
  144. | PubMed
  145. | Scopus (530)
  146. View in Article
  147. | Crossref
  148. | PubMed
  149. | Scopus (195)
  150. View in Article
  151. | PubMed
  152. View in Article
  153. | PubMed
  154. View in Article
  155. | Crossref
  156. | PubMed
  157. | Scopus (44)
  158. View in Article
  159. | Crossref
  160. | PubMed
  161. | Scopus (1357)
  162. View in Article
  163. | PubMed
  164. View in Article
  165. | Crossref
  166. | PubMed
  167. | Scopus (658)
  168. View in Article
  169. | Crossref
  170. | PubMed
  171. | Scopus (95)
  172. View in Article
  173. | Crossref
  174. | PubMed
  175. | Scopus (187)
  176. View in Article
  177. | Crossref
  178. | PubMed
  179. | Scopus (794)
  180. View in Article
  181. | Crossref
  182. | PubMed
  183. | Scopus (274)
  184. View in Article
  185. | Crossref
  186. View in Article
  187. | Crossref
  188. | PubMed
  189. View in Article
  190. | Crossref
  191. | PubMed
  192. | Scopus (88)
  193. View in Article
  194. | Crossref
  195. | PubMed
  196. | Scopus (441)
  197. View in Article
  198. | Crossref
  199. | PubMed
  200. | Scopus (153)
  201. View in Article
  202. | Crossref
  203. | PubMed
  204. | Scopus (102)
  205. View in Article
  206. | Crossref
  207. | PubMed
  208. | Scopus (326)
  209. View in Article
  210. | Crossref
  211. | Scopus (19)
  212. View in Article
  213. | Crossref
  214. | PubMed
  215. | Scopus (42)
  216. View in Article
  217. | Crossref
  218. | PubMed
  219. View in Article
  220. | Crossref
  221. | PubMed
  222. | Scopus (486)
  223. View in Article
  224. | Crossref
  225. | PubMed
  226. | Scopus (391)
  227. View in Article
  228. | Crossref
  229. | PubMed
  230. | Scopus (198)
  231. View in Article
  232. | Abstract
  233. | Full Text
  234. | Full Text PDF
  235. | PubMed
  236. | Scopus (314)
  237. View in Article
  238. | Crossref
  239. | PubMed
  240. | Scopus (134)
  241. View in Article
  242. | Crossref
  243. | PubMed
  244. | Scopus (60)
  245. View in Article
  246. | Crossref
  247. | PubMed
  248. | Scopus (148)
  249. View in Article
  250. | Crossref
  251. | PubMed
  252. | Scopus (29)
  253. View in Article
  254. | Abstract
  255. | Full Text
  256. | Full Text PDF
  257. | PubMed
  258. | Scopus (103)
  259. View in Article
  260. | Crossref
  261. | PubMed
  262. | Scopus (93)
  263. View in Article
  264. | PubMed
  265. View in Article
  266. | Crossref
  267. | PubMed
  268. | Scopus (30)
  269. View in Article
  270. | Crossref
  271. | Scopus (14)
  272. View in Article
  273. | Crossref
  274. | PubMed
  275. | Scopus (475)
  276. View in Article
  277. | Crossref
  278. | PubMed
  279. View in Article
  280. | Crossref
  281. | PubMed
  282. | Scopus (127)
  283. View in Article
  284. | Crossref
  285. | PubMed
  286. | Scopus (145)
  287. View in Article
  288. | Crossref
  289. | PubMed
  290. | Scopus (113)
  291. View in Article
  292. | Crossref
  293. | PubMed
  294. | Scopus (177)
  295. View in Article
  296. | Crossref
  297. | PubMed
  298. | Scopus (202)
  299. View in Article
  300. | Crossref
  301. | PubMed
  302. | Scopus (486)
  303. View in Article
  304. | PubMed
  305. View in Article
  306. | Crossref
  307. | PubMed
  308. | Scopus (37)
  309. View in Article
  310. | Crossref
  311. | PubMed
  312. | Scopus (375)
  313. View in Article
  314. | Crossref
  315. | PubMed
  316. | Scopus (26)
  317. View in Article
  318. | Crossref
  319. | PubMed
  320. | Scopus (98)
  321. View in Article
  322. | Crossref
  323. | PubMed
  324. | Scopus (39)
  325. View in Article
  326. | Crossref
  327. | PubMed
  328. | Scopus (3)
  329. View in Article
  330. | Crossref
  331. | PubMed
  332. | Scopus (1)
  333. View in Article
  334. | Crossref
  335. | Scopus (1)
  336. View in Article
  337. | Crossref
  338. | PubMed
  339. | Scopus (42)
  340. View in Article
  341. | Abstract
  342. | Full Text
  343. | Full Text PDF
  344. | PubMed
  345. | Scopus (198)
  346. View in Article
  347. | PubMed
  348. View in Article
  349. | Crossref
  350. | PubMed
  351. | Scopus (44)
  352. View in Article
  353. | Crossref
  354. | PubMed
  355. | Scopus (349)
  356. View in Article
  357. | Crossref
  358. | Scopus (4)
  359. View in Article
  360. | Crossref
  361. | PubMed
  362. | Scopus (86)
  363. View in Article
  364. | Crossref
  365. | PubMed
  366. | Scopus (67)
  367. View in Article
  368. | Crossref
  369. | PubMed
  370. | Scopus (31)
  371. View in Article
  372. | Crossref
  373. | PubMed
  374. | Scopus (32)
  375. View in Article
  376. | Crossref
  377. | PubMed
  378. | Scopus (5)
  379. View in Article
  380. | PubMed
  381. View in Article
  382. | Crossref
  383. | PubMed
  384. View in Article
  385. | Crossref
  386. | PubMed
  387. | Scopus (8)
  388. View in Article
  389. | Crossref
  390. | PubMed
  391. | Scopus (127)
  392. View in Article
  393. View in Article
  394. | Crossref
  395. | PubMed
  396. | Scopus (26)
  397. View in Article
  398. | Crossref
  399. | PubMed
  400. | Scopus (36)
  401. View in Article
  402. | Crossref
  403. | PubMed
  404. | Scopus (101)
  405. View in Article
  406. | Crossref
  407. | PubMed
  408. | Scopus (28)
  409. View in Article
  410. | PubMed
  411. View in Article
  412. | Crossref
  413. | PubMed
  414. | Scopus (81)
  415. View in Article
  416. | Crossref
  417. | PubMed
  418. | Scopus (114)
  419. View in Article
  420. | PubMed
  421. View in Article
  422. | Crossref
  423. | PubMed
  424. | Scopus (59)
  425. View in Article
  426. | Crossref
  427. | PubMed
  428. | Scopus (44)
  429. View in Article
  430. | Crossref
  431. | PubMed
  432. | Scopus (30)
  433. View in Article
  434. | Crossref
  435. | PubMed
  436. | Scopus (49)
  437. View in Article
  438. | Crossref
  439. | PubMed
  440. | Scopus (97)
  441. View in Article
  442. | Crossref
  443. | PubMed
  444. | Scopus (18)
  445. Koob, G.F. and Volkow, N.D. Neurocircuitry of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010; 35: 217–238DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.110
  446. Robbins, T.W. and Everitt, B.J. Introduction: the neurobiology of drug addiction: new vistas. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008; 363: 3109–3111DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0108
  447. Berridge, K.C. and Robinson, T.E. What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?. Brain Res Brain Res Rev. 1998; 28: 309–369
  448. Kirkpatrick, M.G., Goldenson, N.I., Kapadia, N., Khaler, C.W., de Wit, H., Swift, R.M. et al. Emotional traits predict individual differences in amphetamine-induced positive mood in healthy volunteers. Psychopharmacology. 2015; DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-015-4091-y
  449. Wardle, M.C. and de Wit, H. Effects of amphetamine on reactivity to emotional stimuli. Psychopharmacology. 2012; 220: 143–153DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-011-2498-7
  450. Thomsen, K.R. Measuring anhedonia: impaired ability to pursue, experience, and learn about reward. Front Psychol. 2015; 6: 1409DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01409
  451. Koob, G.F. Animal models of craving for ethanol. Addiction. 2000; 95: S73–S81
  452. Parylak, S.L., Koob, G.F., and Zorrilla, E.P. The dark side of food addiction. Physiol Behav. 2011; 104: 149–156DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.04.063
  453. Koob, G.F. A role for brain stress systems in addiction. Neuron. 2008; 59: 11–34DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2008.06.012
  454. Gardner, E.L. Addiction and brain reward and antireward pathways. Adv Psychosom Med. 2011; 30: 22–60DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1159/000324065
  455. Everitt, B.J. and Robbins, T.W. Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 11: 1481–1487
  456. Alderson, H.L., Robbins, T.W., and Everitt, B.J. Heroin self-administration under a second-order schedule of reinforcement: acquisition and maintenance of heroin-seeking behaviour in rats. Psychopharmacology. 2000; 153: 120–133
  457. Arroyo, M., Markou, A., Robbins, T.W., and Everitt, B.J. Acquisition, maintenance and reinstatement of intravenous cocaine self-administration under a second-order schedule of reinforcement in rats: effects of conditioned cues and continuous access to cocaine. Psychopharmacology. 1998; 140: 331–344
  458. Everitt, B.J., Dickinson, A., and Robbins, T.W. The neuropsychological basis of addictive behaviour. Brain Res Rev. 2001; 36: 129–138
  459. Gasbarri, A., Pompili, A., Packard, M.G., and Tomaz, C. Habit learning and memory in mammals: behavioral and neural characteristics. Neurobiol Learn Mem. 2014; 114: 198–208DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.nlm.2014.06.010
  460. Everitt, B.J., Belin, D., Economidou, D., Pelloux, Y., Dalley, J., and Robbins, T.W. Neural mechanisms underlying the vulnerability to develop compulsive drug-seeking habits and addiction. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008; 363: 3125–3135DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0089
  461. Dalley, J.W., Everitt, B.J., and Robbins, T.W. Impulsivity, compulsivity and top–down cognitive control. Neuron. 2011; 69: 680–694DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.01.020
  462. Dickinson, A., Smith, S., and Mirenowicz, J. Dissociation of Pavlovian and instrumental incentive learning under dopamine antagonists. Behav Neurosci. 2000; 114: 468–483
  463. Cardinal, R.N., Parkinson, J.A., Hall, J., and Everitt, B.J. Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002; 26: 321–352
  464. Bermudez, M.A. and Schultz, W. Timing in reward and decision processes. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2014; 369: 20120468DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2012.0468
  465. Bermudez, M.A., Göbel, C., and Schultz, W. Sensitivity to temporal structure in amygdala neurons. Curr Biol. 2012; 9: 1839–1844DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2012.07.062
  466. Volkow, N.D. and Wise, R.A. How can drug addiction help us understand obesity?. Nat Neurosci. 2005; 8: 555–560
  467. Volkow, N.D., Wang, G.J., and Baler, R.D. Reward, dopamine and the control of food intake: implications for obesity. Trends Cogn Sci. 2011; 15: 37–46DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2010.11.001
  468. Volkow, N.D., Wang, G.J., Fowler, J.S., and Telang, F. Overlapping neuronal circuits in addiction and obesity: evidence of systems pathology. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 2008; 363: 3191–3200DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2008.0107
  469. Di Chiara, G. and Imperato, A. Drugs abused by humans preferentially increase synaptic dopamine concentrations in the mesolimbic system of freely moving rats. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1988; 85: 5274–5278
  470. Wise, R.A. and Rompre, P.P. Brain dopamine and reward. Ann Rev Psychol. 1989; 40: 191–225
  471. Pontieri, F.E., Tanda, G., and Di Chiara, G. Intravenous cocaine, morphine and amphetaemine preferentially increase extracellular dopamine in the “shell” as compared with the “core” of the rat nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1995; 92: 12304–12308
  472. Bassareo, V. and Di Chiara, G. Differential responsiveness of dopamine transmission to food-stimuli in nucleus accumbens shell/core compartments. Neuroscience. 1999; 89: 637–641
  473. Pecina, S., Smith, K.S., and Berridge, K.C. Hedonic hot spots in the brain. Neuroscientist. 2006; 12: 500–511
  474. Puglisi-Allegra, S. and Ventura, R. Prefrontal/accumbal catecholamine system processes high motivational salience. Front Behav Neurosci. 2012; 6: 31DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fnbeh.2012.00031
  475. Wang, G.J., Volkow, N.D., and Fowler, J.S. The role of dopamine in motivation for food in humans: implications for obesity. Expert Opin Ther Targets. 2002; 6: 601–609
  476. McClure, S.M., Daw, N.D., and Montague, P.R. A computational substrate for incentive salience. Trends Neurosci. 2003; 26: 423–428
  477. Jay, T.M. Dopamine: a potential substrate for synaptic plasticity and memory mechanisms. Prog Neurobiol. 2003; 69: 375–390
  478. Schultz, W. Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons. J Neurophysiol. 1998; 80: 1–27
  479. Kelley, A.E. Ventral striatal control of appetitive motivation: role in ingestive behavior and reward-related learning. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004; 27: 765–776
  480. Di Ciano, P. and Everitt, B.J. Dissociable effects of antagonism of NMDA and AMPA/KA receptors in the nucleus accumbens core and shell on cocaine-seeking behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2001; 25: 341–360
  481. Sellings, L.H. and Clarke, P.B. Segregation of amphetamine reward and locomotor stimulation between nucleus accumbens medial shell and core. J Neurosci. 2003; 23: 6295–6303
  482. Ito, R., Dalley, J.W., Howes, S.R., Robbins, T.W., and Everitt, B.J. Dissociation in conditioned dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens core and shell in response to cocaine cues and during cocaine-seeking behavior in rats. J Neurosci. 2000; 20: 7489–7495
  483. Cheng, J.J., de Bruin, J.P., and Feenstra, M.G. Dopamine efflux in nucleus accumbens shell and core in response to appetitive classical conditioning. Eur J Neurosci. 2003; 18: 1306–1314
  484. Kalivas, P.W. and Volkow, N.D. The neural basis of addiction: a pathology of motivation and choice. Am J Psychiatry. 2005; 162: 1403–1413
  485. Haber, S.N., Fudge, J.L., and McFarland, N.R. Striatonigrostriatal pathways in primates form an ascending spiral from the shell to the dorsolateral striatum. J Neurosci. 2000; 20: 2369–2382
  486. Haber, S.N. The primate basal ganglia: parallel and integrative networks. J Chem Neuroanat. 2003; 26: 317–330
  487. Parkinson, J.A., Cardinal, R.N., and Everitt, B.J. Limbic cortical-ventral striatal systems underlying appetitive conditioning. Prog Brain Res. 2000; 126: 263–285
  488. Di Ciano, P. and Everitt, B.J. Direct interactions between baso-lateral amygdala and nucleus accumbens core underlie cocaine-seeking behavior by rats. J Neurosci. 2004; 24: 7167–7173
  489. Hyman, S.E. and Malenka, R.C. Addiction and the brain: the neurobiology of compulsion and its persistence. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2001; 2: 695–703
  490. Corbit, L.H. and Balleine, B.W. Double dissociation of basolateral and central amygdala lesions on the general and outcome-specific forms of pavlovian-instrumental transfer. J Neurosci. 2005; 25: 962–970
  491. Tomaz, C., Dickinson-Anson, H., and McGaugh, J.L. Basolateral amygdala lesions block diazepam-induced anterograde amnesia in an inhibitory avoidance task. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 1992; 15: 3615–3619
  492. Tomaz, C., Dickinson-Anson, H., McGaugh, J.L., Souza-Silva, M.A., Viana, M.B., and Graeff, E.G. Localization in the amygdala of the amnestic action of diazepam on emotional memory. Behav Brain Res. 1993; 58: 99–105
  493. Milton, A.L., Lee, J.L., and Everitt, B.J. Reconsolidation of appetitive memories for both natural and drug reinforcement is dependent on β-adrenergic receptors. Learn Mem. 2008; 15: 88–92DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1101/lm.825008
  494. Paton, J.J., Belova, M.A., Morrison, S.E., and Salzman, C.D. The primate amygdala represents the positive and negative value of visual stimuli during learning. Nature. 2006; 439: 865–870
  495. See, R.E., Kruzich, P.J., and Grimm, J.W. Dopamine, but not glutamate, receptor blockade in the basolateral amygdala attenuates conditioned reward in a rat model of relapse to cocaine-seeking behavior. Psychopharmacology. 2001; 154: 301–310
  496. Neisewander, J.L., O’Dell, L.E., Tran-Nguyen, L.T., Castaňeda, E., and Fuchs, R.A. Dopamine overflow in the nucleus accumbens during extinction and reinstatement of cocaine self-administration behavior. Neuropsychopharmacology. 1996; 15: 506–514
  497. McFarland, K., Davidge, S.B., Lapish, C.C., and Kalivas, P.W. Limbic and motor circuitry underlying footshock-induced reinstatement of cocaine-seeking behavior. J Neurosci. 2004; 24: 1551–1560
  498. Parsegian, A. and See, R.E. Dysregulation of dopamine and glutamate release in the prefrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens following methamphetamine self-administration and during reinstatement in rats. J Neurosci. 2014; 27: 2045–2057DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2013.231
  499. Belin, D., Belin-Rauscent, A., Murray, J.E., and Everitt, B.J. Addiction: failure of control over maladaptive incentive habits. Curr Opin Neurobiol. 2013; 23: 564–572DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.025
  500. Bechara, A., Damasio, H., and Damasio, A.R. Emotion, decision making and the orbitofrontal cortex. Cereb Cortex. 2000; 10: 295–307
  501. Yin, H.H., Knowlton, B.J., and Balleine, B.W. Lesions of dorsolateral striatum preserve outcome expectancy but disrupt habit formation in instrumental learning. Eur J Neurosci. 2004; 19: 181–189
  502. Yin, H.H., Ostlund, S.B., Knowlton, B.J., and Balleine, B.W. The role of the dorsomedial striatum in instrumental conditioning. Eur J Neurosci. 2005; 22: 513–523
  503. Faure, A., Haberland, U., Conde, F., and El Massioui, N. Lesion to the nigrostriatal dopamine system disrupts stimulus-response habit formation. J Neurosci. 2005; 25: 2771–2780
  504. Belin, D. and Everitt, B.J. Cocaine seeking habits depend upon dopamine-dependent serial connectivity linking the ventral with the dorsal striatum. Neuron. 2008; 57: 432–441DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2007.12.019
  505. Koob, G.F. Brain stress systems in the amygdala and addiction. Brain Res. 2009; 1293: 61–75DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.brainres.2009.03.038
  506. Koob, G.F. Addiction is a reward deficit and stress surfeit disorder. Front Psychiatr. 2013; 4: 72DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00072
  507. Jennings, J.H., Sparta, D.R., Stamatakis, A.M., Ung, R.L., Pleil, K.E., Kash, T.L. et al. Distinct extended amygdala circuits for divergent motivational states. Nature. 2013; 496: 224–228DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature12041
  508. Stamatakis, A.M., Sparta, D.R., Jennings, J.H., McElligott, Z.A., Decot, H., and Stuber, G.D. Amygdala and bed nucleus of the stria terminalis circuitry: implications for addiction-related behaviors. Neuropharmacology. 2014; 76: 320–328DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.05.046
  509. LeMoal, M. and Koob, G.F. Drug addiction: pathways to the disease and pathophysiological perspectives. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol. 2007; 17: 377–393
  510. Ventura, R., Morrone, C., and Puglisi-Allegra, S. Prefrontal/accumbal catecholamine system determines motivational salience attribution to both reward- and aversion-related stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2007; 104: 5181–5186
  511. Kelley, A.E. and Berridge, K.C. The neuroscience of natural rewards: relevance to addictive drugs. J Neurosci. 2002; 22: 3306–3311
  512. Berner, L.A., Bocarsly, M.E., Hoebel, B.G., and Avena, N.M. Baclofen suppresses binge eating of pure fat but not a sugar-rich or sweet-fat diet. Behav Pharmacol. 2009; 20: 631–634DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/FBP.0b013e328331ba47
  513. Latagliata, E.C., Patrono, E., Puglisi-Allegra, S., and Ventura, R. Food seeking in spite of harmful consequences is under prefrontal cortical noradrenergic control. BMC Neurosci. 2010; 8: 11–15DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1471-2202-11-15
  514. Avena, N.M., Rada, P., and Hoebel, B.G. Evidence for sugar addiction: behavioral and neurochemical effects of intermittent, excessive sugar intake. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2008; 32: 20–39
  515. Bancroft, J. and Vukadinovic, Z. Sexual addiction, sexual compulsivity, sexual impulsivity, or what? Toward a theoretical model. J Sex Res. 2004; 41: 225–234
  516. Petry, N.M. Should the scope of addictive behaviors be broadened to include pathological gambling?. Addiction. 2006; 101: 152–160
  517. Ziauddeen, H., Farooqi, I.S., and Fletcher, P.C. Obesity and the brain: how convincing is the addiction model?. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2012; 13: 279–286DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nrn3212
  518. Avena, N.M., Rada, P., Moise, N., and Hoebel, B.G. Sucrose sham feeding on a binge schedule releases accumbens dopamine repeatedly and eliminates the acetylcholine satiety response. Neuroscience. 2006; 139: 813–820
  519. Lenoir, M., Serre, F., Cantin, L., and Ahmed, S. Intense sweetness surpasses cocaine reward. PLoS ONE. 2007; 2: e698
  520. Wang, G.J., Volkow, N.D., Telang, F., Jayne, M., Ma, J., Rao, M. et al. Exposure to appetitive food stimuli markedly activates the human brain. Neuroimage. 2004; 21: 1790–1797
  521. Deroche-Gamonet, V., Belin, D., and Piazza, P.V. Evidence for addiction-like behavior in the rat. Science. 2004; 305: 1014–1017
  522. Gilpin, N.W. and Koob, G.F. Neurobiology of alcohol dependence: focus on motivational mechanisms. Alcohol Res Health. 2008; 31: 185–195
  523. Gilpin, N.W. and Koob, G.F. Effects of β-adrenoceptor antagonists on alcohol drinking by alcohol-dependent rats. Psychopharmacology. 2010; 212: 431–439DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-010-1967-8
  524. Vanderschuren, L.J. and Everitt, B.J. Drug seeking becomes compulsive after prolonged cocaine self-administration. Science. 2004; 305: 1017–1019
  525. Heyne, A., Kiesselbach, C., and Sahùn, I. An animal model of compulsive food-taking behaviour. Addict Biol. 2009; 14: 373–383DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1369-1600.2009.00175.x
  526. Corwin, R.L., Avena, N.M., and Boggiano, M.M. Feeding and reward: perspectives from three rat models of binge eating. Physiol Behav. 2011; 104: 87–97DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2011.04.041
  527. LeMerrer, J. and Stephens, D.N. Food-induced behavioral sensitization, its cross-sensitization to cocaine and morphine, pharmacological blockade, and effect on food intake. J Neurosci. 2006; 26: 7163–7171
  528. Duarte, R.B.M., Patrono, E., Borges, A.C., César, A.A.S., Tomaz, C., Ventura, R. et al. Consumption of a highly palatable food induces a lasting place-conditioning memory in marmoset monkeys. Behav Process. 2014; 107: 163–166DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.beproc.2014.08.021
  529. Duarte, R.B.M., Patrono, E., Borges, A.C., Tomaz, C., Ventura, R., Gasbarri, A. et al. High versus low fat/sugar food affects the behavioral, but not the cortisol response of marmoset monkeys in a conditioned-place-preference task. Physiol Behav. 2015; 139: 442–448DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physbeh.2014.11.065
  530. Patrono, E., Di Segni, M., Patella, L., Andolina, D., Valzania, A., Latagliata, E.C. et al. When chocolate seeking becomes compulsion: gene-environment interplay. PLoS ONE. 2015; 10: e0120191DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0120191
  531. Hoebel, B.G., Avena, N.M., Bocarsly, M.E., and Rada, P. Natural addiction: a behavioral and circuit model based on sugar addiction in rats. J Addict Med. 2009; 3: 33–41DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1097/ADM.0b013e31819aa621
  532. Kenny, P.J. Reward mechanisms in obesity: new insights and future directions. Neuron. 2011; 69: 664–679DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2011.02.016
  533. Bulik, C.M. Exploring the gene-environment nexus in eating disorders. J Psychiatry Neurosci. 2005; 30: 335–339
  534. Campbell, I.C., Mill, J., Uher, R., and Schmidt, U. Eating disorders, gene-environment interactions and epi-genetics. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2010; 35: 784–793DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.09.012
  535. Volkow, N.D., Fowler, J.S., Wang, G.J., Baler, R., and Telang, F. Imaging dopamine’s role in drug abuse and addiction. Neuropharmacology. 2009; 56: 3–8DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.05.022
  536. Di Segni, M., Patrono, E., Patella, L., Puglisi-Allegra, S., and Ventura, R. Animal models of compulsive eating behavior. Nutrients. 2015; 6: 4591–4609DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.3390/nu6104591
  537. Berke, J.D. Fast oscillations in cortical-striatal networks switch frequency following rewarding events and stimulant drugs. Eur J Neurosci. 2009; 30: 848–859DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06843.x
  538. Ren, X., Ferreira, J.G., Zhou, L., Shammah-Lagnado, S.J., Jeckel, C.W., and de Araujo, I.E. Nutrient selection in the absence of taste receptor signaling. J Neurosci. 2010; 30: 8012–8023DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5749-09.2010
  539. Wiltschko, A.B., Pettibone, J.R., and Berke, J.D. Opposite effects of stimulant and antipsychotic drugs on striatal fast-spiking interneurons. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010; 35: 1261–1270DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2009.226
  540. Cacciapaglia, F., Wightman, R.M., and Carelli, R.M. Rapid dopamine signaling differentially modulates distinct microcircuits within the nucleus accumbens during sucrose-directed behavior. J Neurosci. 2011; 31: 13860–13869DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1340-11.2011
  541. Shimura, T., Imaoka, H., Okazaki, Y., Kanamori, Y., Fushiki, T., and Yamamoto, T. Involvement of the mesolimbic system in palatability-induced ingestion. Chem Senses. 2005; 30: i188–i189
  542. Nishijo, H., Uwano, T., Tamura, R., and Ono, T. Gustatory and multimodal responses in the amygdala during licking and discrimination of sensory stimuli in awake rats. J Neurophysiol. 1998; 79: 21–36
  543. Nishijo, H., Uwano, T., and Ono, T. Representation of taste stimuli in the brain. Chem Senses. 2005; 30: i174–i175
  544. Matsumoto, J., Urakawa, S., Hori, E., de Araujo, M.F., Sakuma, Y., Ono, T. et al. Neuronal responses in the nucleus accumbens shell during sexual behavior in male rats. J Neurosci. 2012; 32: 1672–1686DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5140-11.2012
  545. Meredith, G.E. The synaptic framework for chemical signaling in nucleus accumbens. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999; 877: 140–156
  546. Tepper, J.M. and Plenz, D. Microcircuits in the striatum: striatal cell types and their interaction. in: S. Grillner, A.M. Graybiel (Eds.) Microcircuits: the interface between neurons and global brain function. MIT, Cambridge; 2006: 127–148
  547. Lansink, C.S., Goltstein, P.M., Lankelma, J.V., and Pennartz, C.M. Fast-spiking interneurons of the rat ventral striatum: temporal coordination of activity with principal cells and responsiveness to reward. Eur J Neurosci. 2010; 32: 494–508DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07293.x
  548. Piazza, P.V. and Deroche-Gamonet, V. A multistep general theory of transition to addiction. Psychopharmacology. 2013; 229: 387–413DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00213-013-3224-4
  549. Greba, Q., Gifkins, A., and Kokkinidis, L. Inhibition of amygdaloid dopamine D2 receptors impairs emotional learning measured with fear-potentiated startle. Brain Res. 2001; 899: 218–226
  550. Guarraci, F.A., Frohardt, R.J., Young, S.L., and Kapp, B.S. A functional role for dopamine transmission in the amygdala during conditioned fear. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999; 877: 732–736
  551. Rosenkranz, J.A. and Grace, A.A. Cellular mechanisms of infralimbic and prelimbic prefrontal cortical inhibition and dopaminergic modulation of basolateral amygdala neurons in vivo. J Neurosci. 2002; 22: 324–337
  552. Dumont, E.C. and Williams, J.T. Noradrenaline triggers GABAA inhibition of bed nucleus of the stria terminalis neurons projecting to the ventral tegmental area. J Neurosci. 2004; 24: 8198–8204
  553. Smith, R.J. and Aston-Jones, G. Noradrenergic transmission in the extended amygdala: role in increased drug-seeking and relapse during protracted drug abstinence. Brain Struct Funct. 2008; 213: 43–61DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00429-008-0191-3
  554. Ventura, R., Cabib, S., Alcaro, A., Orsini, C., and Puglisi-Allegra, S. Norepinephrine in the prefrontal cortex is critical for amphetamine-induced reward and mesoaccumbens dopamine release. J Neurosci. 2003; 23: 1879–1885
  555. Ventura, R., Alcaro, A., and Puglisi-Allegra, S. Prefrontal cortical norepinephrine release is critical for morphine-induced reward, reinstatement and dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens. Cereb Cortex. 2005; 15: 1877–1886
  556. van der Meulen, J.A., Joosten, R.N., de Bruin, J.P., and Feenstra, M.G. Dopamine and noradrenaline efflux in the medial prefrontal cortex during serial reversals and extinction of instrumental goal-directed behavior. Cereb Cortex. 2007; 17: 1444–1453
  557. Mitrano, D.A., Schroeder, J.P., Smith, Y., Cortright, J.J., Bubula, N., Vezina, P. et al. α-1 adrenergic receptors are localized on presynaptic elements in the nucleus accumbens and regulate mesolimbic dopamine transmission. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2012; 37: 2161–2172DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2012.68
  558. Stevenson, C.W. and Gratton, A. Basolateral amygdala modulation of the nucleus accumbens dopamine response to stress: role of the medial prefrontal cortex. Eur J Neurosci. 2003; 17: 1287–1295
  559. Floresco, S.B. and Tse, M.T. Dopaminergic regulation of inhibitory and excitatory transmission in the basolateral amygdala-prefrontal cortical pathway. J Neurosci. 2007; 27: 2045–2057
  560. Ito, R. and Canseliet, M. Amphetamine exposure selectively enhances hippocampus-dependent spatial learning and attenuates amygdala-dependent cue learning. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2010; 35: 1440–1452DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/npp.2010.14