Jonathan W. Kanen

Serotonin is critical for adapting behavior flexibly to meet changing environmental demands. Cognitive flexibility is important for successful attainment of goals, as well as for social interactions, and is frequently impaired in neuropsychiatric disorders, including obsessive–compulsive disorder. However, a unifying mechanistic framework accounting for the role of serotonin in behavioral flexibility has remained elusive. Here, we demonstrate common effects of manipulating serotonin function across two species (rats and humans) on latent processes supporting choice behavior during probabilistic reversal learning, using computational modelling. The findings support a role of serotonin in behavioral flexibility and plasticity, indicated, respectively, by increases or decreases in choice repetition (‘stickiness’) or reinforcement learning rates following manipulations intended to increase or decrease serotonin function. More specifically, the rate at which expected value increased following reward and decreased following punishment (reward and punishment ‘learning rates’) was greatest after sub-chronic administration of the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) citalopram (5 mg/kg for 7 days followed by 10 mg/kg twice a day for 5 days) in rats. Conversely, humans given a single dose of an SSRI (20 mg escitalopram), which can decrease post-synaptic serotonin signalling, and rats that received the neurotoxin 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine (5,7-DHT), which destroys forebrain serotonergic neurons, exhibited decreased reward learning rates. A basic perseverative tendency (‘stickiness’), or choice repetition irrespective of the outcome produced, was likewise increased in rats after the 12-day SSRI regimen and decreased after single dose SSRI in humans and 5,7-DHT in rats. These common effects of serotonergic manipulations on rats and humans—identified via computational modelling—suggest an evolutionarily conserved role for serotonin in plasticity and behavioral flexibility and have clinical relevance transdiagnostically for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Cognitive flexibility refers to the ability to adjust to changes in the environment and is essential for adaptive behavior. It can be investigated using laboratory tests such as probabilistic reversal learning (PRL). In individuals with both Cocaine Use Disorder (CUD) and Gambling Disorder (GD), overall impairments in PRL flexibility are observed. However, it is poorly understood whether this impairment depends on the same brain mechanisms in cocaine and gambling addictions. Reinforcement learning (RL) is the process by which rewarding or punishing feedback from the environment is used to adjust behavior, to maximise reward and minimise punishment. Using RL models, a deeper mechanistic explanation of the latent processes underlying cognitive flexibility can be gained. Here, we report results from a re-analysis of PRL data from control participants (n=18) and individuals with either GD (n=18) or CUD (n=20) using a hierarchical Bayesian RL approach. We observed significantly reduced ‘stimulus stickiness’ (i.e., stimulus-bound perseveration) in GD, which may reflect increased exploratory behavior that is insensitive to outcomes. RL parameters were unaffected in CUD. We relate the behavioral findings to their underlying neural substrates through an analysis of task-based fMRI data. We report differences in tracking reward and punishment expected values (EV) in individuals with GD compared to controls, with greater activity during reward EV tracking in the cingulate gyrus and amygdala. In CUD, we observed reduced responses to positive punishment prediction errors (PPE) and increased activity following negative PPEs in the superior frontal gyrus compared to controls. Thus, an RL framework serves to differentiate behavior in a probabilistic learning paradigm in two compulsive disorders, GD and CUD.

Adaptive human learning utilizes reward prediction errors (RPEs) that scale the differences between expected and actual outcomes to optimize future choices. Depression has been linked with biased RPE signaling and an exaggerated impact of negative outcomes on learning which may promote amotivation and anhedonia. The present proof-of-concept study combined computational modeling and multivariate decoding with neuroimaging to determine the influence of the selective competitive angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist losartan on learning from positive or negative outcomes and the underlying neural mechanisms in healthy humans. In a double-blind, between-subjects, placebo-controlled pharmaco-fMRI experiment, 61 healthy male participants (losartan, n = 30; placebo, n = 31) underwent a probabilistic selection reinforcement learning task incorporating a learning and transfer phase. Losartan improved choice accuracy for the hardest stimulus pair via increasing expected value sensitivity towards the rewarding stimulus relative to the placebo group during learning. Computational modeling revealed that losartan reduced the learning rate for negative outcomes and increased exploitatory choice behaviors while preserving learning for positive outcomes. These behavioral patterns were paralleled on the neural level by increased RPE signaling in orbitofrontal-striatal regions and enhanced positive outcome representations in the ventral striatum (VS) following losartan. In the transfer phase, losartan accelerated response times and enhanced VS functional connectivity with left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when approaching maximum rewards. These findings elucidate the potential of losartan to reduce the impact of negative outcomes during learning and subsequently facilitate motivational approach towards maximum rewards in the transfer of learning. This may indicate a promising therapeutic mechanism to normalize distorted reward learning and fronto-striatal functioning in depression.

Serotonin is critical for adapting behavior flexibly to meet changing environmental demands. Cognitive flexibility is important both for successful attainment of goals, as well as for social interactions, and is frequently impaired in neuropsychiatric disorders, including obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD). However, a unifying mechanistic framework accounting for the role of serotonin in behavioral flexibility has remained elusive. Here, we demonstrate common effects of manipulating serotonin function across two species (rats and humans) on latent processes supporting choice behavior during probabilistic reversal learning using computational modelling. The findings support a role of serotonin in behavioral flexibility and plasticity, indicated, respectively, by increases or decreases in choice repetition (‘stickiness’) or reinforcement learning rates depending upon manipulations intended to increase or decrease serotonin function. More specifically, the rate at which expected value increased following reward and decreased following punishment (reward and punishment ‘learning rates’) was greatest after sub-chronic administration of the selective serotonin reuptake (SSRI) citalopram (5 mg/kg for 7 days followed by 10 mg/kg twice a day for 5 days) in rats. Conversely, humans given a single dose of an SSRI (20mg escitalopram), which can decrease post-synaptic serotonin signalling, and rats that received the neurotoxin 5,7-dihydroxytryptamine (5,7-DHT), which destroys forebrain serotonergic neurons, exhibited decreased reward learning rates. A basic perseverative tendency (‘stickiness’), or choice repetition irrespective of the outcome produced, was likewise increased in rats after the 12-day SSRI regimen and decreased after single dose SSRI in humans and 5,7-DHT in rats. These common effects of serotonergic manipulations on rats and humans – identified via computational modelling – suggest an evolutionarily conserved role for serotonin in plasticity and behavioral flexibility and have clinical relevance transdiagnostically for neuropsychiatric disorders.

Background: The non-selective serotonin 2A (5-HT_2A) receptor agonist lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD) holds promise as a treatment for some psychiatric disorders. Psychedelic drugs such as LSD have been suggested to have therapeutic actions through their effects on learning. The behavioural effects of LSD in humans, however, remain incompletely understood. Here we examined how LSD affects probabilistic reversal learning (PRL) in healthy humans.Methods: Healthy volunteers received intravenous LSD (75μg in 10 mL saline) or placebo (10 mL saline) in a within-subjects design and completed a PRL task. Participants had to learn through trial and error which of three stimuli was rewarded most of the time, and these contingencies switched in a reversal phase. Computational models of reinforcement learning (RL) were fitted to the behavioural data to assess how LSD affected the updating (‘learning rates’) and deployment of value representations (‘reinforcement sensitivity’) during choice, as well as ‘stimulus stickiness’ (choice repetition irrespective of reinforcement history).Results: Raw data measures assessing sensitivity to immediate feedback (‘win-stay’ and ‘lose-shift’ probabilities) were unaffected, whereas LSD increased the impact of the strength of initial learning on perseveration. Computational modelling revealed that the most pronounced effect of LSD was the enhancement of the reward learning rate. The punishment learning rate was also elevated. Stimulus stickiness was decreased by LSD, reflecting heightened exploration. Reinforcement sensitivity differed by phase.Conclusions: Increased RL rates suggest LSD induced a state of heightened plasticity. These results indicate a potential mechanism through which revision of maladaptive associations could occur in the clinical application of LSD.

Adaptive human learning utilizes reward prediction errors (RPEs) that scale the differences between expected and actual outcomes to optimize future choices. Depression has been linked with biased RPE signaling and an exaggerated impact of negative outcomes on learning which may promote amotivation and anhedonia. The present proof-of-concept study combined computational modelling and multivariate decoding with neuroimaging to determine the influence of the selective competitive angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist losartan on learning from positive or negative outcomes and the underlying neural mechanisms in healthy humans. In a double-blind, between-subjects, placebo-controlled pharmaco-fMRI experiment, 61 healthy male participants (losartan, n = 30; placebo, n = 31) underwent a probabilistic selection reinforcement learning task incorporating a learning and transfer phase. Losartan improved choice accuracy for the hardest stimulus pair via increasing expected value sensitivity towards the rewarding stimulus relative to the placebo group during learning. Computational modelling revealed that losartan reduced the learning rate for negative outcomes and increased exploitatory choice behaviors while preserving learning for positive outcomes. These behavioral patterns were paralleled on the neural level by increased RPE signaling in orbitofrontal-striatal regions and enhanced positive outcome representations in the ventral striatum (VS) following losartan. In the transfer phase, losartan accelerated response times and enhanced VS functional connectivity with left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when approaching maximum rewards. These findings elucidate the potential of losartan to reduce the impact of negative outcomes during learning and subsequently facilitate motivational approach towards maximum rewards in the transfer of learning. This may indicate a promising therapeutic mechanism to normalize distorted reward learning and fronto-striatal functioning in depression.

Adaptive human learning utilizes reward prediction errors (RPEs) that scale the differences between expected and actual outcomes to optimize future choices. Depression has been linked with biased RPE signaling and an exaggerated impact of negative outcomes on learning which may promote amotivation and anhedonia. The present proof-of-concept study combined computational modelling and multivariate decoding with neuroimaging to determine the influence of the selective competitive angiotensin II type 1 receptor antagonist losartan on learning from positive or negative outcomes and the underlying neural mechanisms in healthy humans. In a double-blind, between-subjects, placebo-controlled pharmaco-fMRI experiment, 61 healthy male participants (losartan, n=30; placebo, n=31) underwent a probabilistic selection reinforcement learning task incorporating a learning and transfer phase. Losartan improved choice accuracy for the hardest stimulus pair via increasing expected value sensitivity towards the rewarding stimulus relative to the placebo group during learning. Computational modelling revealed that losartan reduced the learning rate for negative outcomes and increased exploitatory choice behaviors while preserving learning for positive outcomes. These behavioral patterns were paralleled on the neural level by increased RPE signaling in orbitofrontal-striatal regions and enhanced positive outcome representations in the ventral striatum (VS) following losartan. In the transfer phase, losartan accelerated response times and enhanced VS functional connectivity with left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex when approaching maximum rewards. These findings elucidate the potential of losartan to reduce the impact of negative outcomes during learning and subsequently facilitate motivational approach towards maximum rewards in the transfer of learning. This may indicate a promising therapeutic mechanism to normalize distorted reward learning and fronto-striatal functioning in depression.

Serotonin is involved in updating responses to changing environmental circumstances. Optimising behaviour to maximise reward and minimise punishment may require shifting strategies upon encountering new situations. Likewise, autonomic responses to threats are critical for survival yet must be modified as danger shifts from one source to another. Whilst numerous psychiatric disorders are characterised by behavioural and autonomic inflexibility, few studies have examined the contribution of serotonin in humans. We modelled both processes, respectively, in two independent experiments (N = 97). Experiment 1 assessed instrumental (stimulus-response-outcome) reversal learning whereby individuals learned through trial and error which action was most optimal for obtaining reward or avoiding punishment initially, and the contingencies subsequently reversed serially. Experiment 2 examined Pavlovian (stimulus-outcome) reversal learning assessed by the skin conductance response: one innately threatening stimulus predicted receipt of an uncomfortable electric shock and another did not; these contingencies swapped in a reversal phase. Upon depleting the serotonin precursor tryptophan—in a double-blind randomised placebo-controlled design—healthy volunteers showed impairments in updating both actions and autonomic responses to reflect changing contingencies. Reversal deficits in each domain, furthermore, were correlated with the extent of tryptophan depletion. Initial Pavlovian conditioning, moreover, which involved innately threatening stimuli, was potentiated by depletion. These results translate findings in experimental animals to humans and have implications for the neurochemical basis of cognitive inflexibility.