When what you see isn't what you get: Alcohol cues, alcohol administration, prediction error, and human striatal dopamine

Karmen K. Yoder, Evan D. Morris, Cristian C. Constantinescu, Tee Ean Cheng, Marc D. Normandin, Sean J. O'Connor, David A. Kareken

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

48 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The mesolimbic dopamine (DA) system is implicated in the development and maintenance of alcohol drinking; however, the exact mechanisms by which DA regulates human alcohol consumption are unclear. This study assessed the distinct effects of alcohol-related cues and alcohol administration on striatal DA release in healthy humans. Methods: Subjects underwent 3 PET scans with [11C]raclopride (RAC). Subjects were informed that they would receive either an IV Ringer's lactate infusion or an alcohol (EtOH) infusion during scanning, with naturalistic visual and olfactory cues indicating which infusion would occur. Scans were acquired in the following sequence: (1) Baseline Scan: Neutral cues predicting a Ringer's lactate infusion, (2) CUES Scan: Alcohol-related cues predicting alcohol infusion in a Ringer's lactate solution, but with alcohol infusion after scanning to isolate the effects of cues, and (3) EtOH Scan: Neutral cues predicting Ringer's, but with alcohol infusion during scanning (to isolate the effects of alcohol without confounding expectation or craving). Results: Relative to baseline, striatal DA concentration decreased during CUES, but increased during EtOH. Conclusion: While the results appear inconsistent with some animal experiments showing dopaminergic responses to alcohol's conditioned cues, they can be understood in the context of the hypothesized role of the striatum in reward prediction error, and of animal studies showing that midbrain dopamine neurons decrease and increase firing rates during negative and positive prediction errors, respectively. We believe that our data are the first in humans to demonstrate such changes in striatal DA during reward prediction error.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)139-149
Number of pages11
JournalAlcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research
Volume33
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jan 1 2009

Fingerprint

Corpus Striatum
Cues
Dopamine
Alcohols
Reward
Alcohol Drinking
Scanning
Raclopride
Animals
Dopaminergic Neurons
Mesencephalon
Positron-Emission Tomography
Neurons
Maintenance

Keywords

  • Alcohol
  • Alcohol cues
  • Dopamine
  • PET
  • Prediction error

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Toxicology

Cite this

When what you see isn't what you get : Alcohol cues, alcohol administration, prediction error, and human striatal dopamine. / Yoder, Karmen K.; Morris, Evan D.; Constantinescu, Cristian C.; Cheng, Tee Ean; Normandin, Marc D.; O'Connor, Sean J.; Kareken, David A.

In: Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, Vol. 33, No. 1, 01.01.2009, p. 139-149.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{9d51f5219b9f4268a13de1c922406738,
title = "When what you see isn't what you get: Alcohol cues, alcohol administration, prediction error, and human striatal dopamine",
abstract = "Background: The mesolimbic dopamine (DA) system is implicated in the development and maintenance of alcohol drinking; however, the exact mechanisms by which DA regulates human alcohol consumption are unclear. This study assessed the distinct effects of alcohol-related cues and alcohol administration on striatal DA release in healthy humans. Methods: Subjects underwent 3 PET scans with [11C]raclopride (RAC). Subjects were informed that they would receive either an IV Ringer's lactate infusion or an alcohol (EtOH) infusion during scanning, with naturalistic visual and olfactory cues indicating which infusion would occur. Scans were acquired in the following sequence: (1) Baseline Scan: Neutral cues predicting a Ringer's lactate infusion, (2) CUES Scan: Alcohol-related cues predicting alcohol infusion in a Ringer's lactate solution, but with alcohol infusion after scanning to isolate the effects of cues, and (3) EtOH Scan: Neutral cues predicting Ringer's, but with alcohol infusion during scanning (to isolate the effects of alcohol without confounding expectation or craving). Results: Relative to baseline, striatal DA concentration decreased during CUES, but increased during EtOH. Conclusion: While the results appear inconsistent with some animal experiments showing dopaminergic responses to alcohol's conditioned cues, they can be understood in the context of the hypothesized role of the striatum in reward prediction error, and of animal studies showing that midbrain dopamine neurons decrease and increase firing rates during negative and positive prediction errors, respectively. We believe that our data are the first in humans to demonstrate such changes in striatal DA during reward prediction error.",
keywords = "Alcohol, Alcohol cues, Dopamine, PET, Prediction error",
author = "Yoder, {Karmen K.} and Morris, {Evan D.} and Constantinescu, {Cristian C.} and Cheng, {Tee Ean} and Normandin, {Marc D.} and O'Connor, {Sean J.} and Kareken, {David A.}",
year = "2009",
month = "1",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00821.x",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "33",
pages = "139--149",
journal = "Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research",
issn = "0145-6008",
publisher = "Wiley-Blackwell",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - When what you see isn't what you get

T2 - Alcohol cues, alcohol administration, prediction error, and human striatal dopamine

AU - Yoder, Karmen K.

AU - Morris, Evan D.

AU - Constantinescu, Cristian C.

AU - Cheng, Tee Ean

AU - Normandin, Marc D.

AU - O'Connor, Sean J.

AU - Kareken, David A.

PY - 2009/1/1

Y1 - 2009/1/1

N2 - Background: The mesolimbic dopamine (DA) system is implicated in the development and maintenance of alcohol drinking; however, the exact mechanisms by which DA regulates human alcohol consumption are unclear. This study assessed the distinct effects of alcohol-related cues and alcohol administration on striatal DA release in healthy humans. Methods: Subjects underwent 3 PET scans with [11C]raclopride (RAC). Subjects were informed that they would receive either an IV Ringer's lactate infusion or an alcohol (EtOH) infusion during scanning, with naturalistic visual and olfactory cues indicating which infusion would occur. Scans were acquired in the following sequence: (1) Baseline Scan: Neutral cues predicting a Ringer's lactate infusion, (2) CUES Scan: Alcohol-related cues predicting alcohol infusion in a Ringer's lactate solution, but with alcohol infusion after scanning to isolate the effects of cues, and (3) EtOH Scan: Neutral cues predicting Ringer's, but with alcohol infusion during scanning (to isolate the effects of alcohol without confounding expectation or craving). Results: Relative to baseline, striatal DA concentration decreased during CUES, but increased during EtOH. Conclusion: While the results appear inconsistent with some animal experiments showing dopaminergic responses to alcohol's conditioned cues, they can be understood in the context of the hypothesized role of the striatum in reward prediction error, and of animal studies showing that midbrain dopamine neurons decrease and increase firing rates during negative and positive prediction errors, respectively. We believe that our data are the first in humans to demonstrate such changes in striatal DA during reward prediction error.

AB - Background: The mesolimbic dopamine (DA) system is implicated in the development and maintenance of alcohol drinking; however, the exact mechanisms by which DA regulates human alcohol consumption are unclear. This study assessed the distinct effects of alcohol-related cues and alcohol administration on striatal DA release in healthy humans. Methods: Subjects underwent 3 PET scans with [11C]raclopride (RAC). Subjects were informed that they would receive either an IV Ringer's lactate infusion or an alcohol (EtOH) infusion during scanning, with naturalistic visual and olfactory cues indicating which infusion would occur. Scans were acquired in the following sequence: (1) Baseline Scan: Neutral cues predicting a Ringer's lactate infusion, (2) CUES Scan: Alcohol-related cues predicting alcohol infusion in a Ringer's lactate solution, but with alcohol infusion after scanning to isolate the effects of cues, and (3) EtOH Scan: Neutral cues predicting Ringer's, but with alcohol infusion during scanning (to isolate the effects of alcohol without confounding expectation or craving). Results: Relative to baseline, striatal DA concentration decreased during CUES, but increased during EtOH. Conclusion: While the results appear inconsistent with some animal experiments showing dopaminergic responses to alcohol's conditioned cues, they can be understood in the context of the hypothesized role of the striatum in reward prediction error, and of animal studies showing that midbrain dopamine neurons decrease and increase firing rates during negative and positive prediction errors, respectively. We believe that our data are the first in humans to demonstrate such changes in striatal DA during reward prediction error.

KW - Alcohol

KW - Alcohol cues

KW - Dopamine

KW - PET

KW - Prediction error

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58149125412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58149125412&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00821.x

DO - 10.1111/j.1530-0277.2008.00821.x

M3 - Article

C2 - 18976347

AN - SCOPUS:58149125412

VL - 33

SP - 139

EP - 149

JO - Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

JF - Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research

SN - 0145-6008

IS - 1

ER -