Cited by 56Memory and Neural MechanismsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

Inactivation of prelimbic and infralimbic cortex respectively affects minimally-trained and extensively-trained goal-directed actions

Open access
Shipman, Megan L., Trask, Sydney, Bouton, Mark E., Green, John T.·2018·Neurobiology of Learning and Memory

Abstract

Several studies have examined a role for the prelimbic cortex (PL) and infralimbic cortex (IL) in free operant behavior. The general conclusion has been that PL controls goal-directed actions (instrumental behaviors that are sensitive to reinforcer devaluation) whereas IL controls habits (instrumental behaviors that are not sensitive to reinforcer devaluation). To further examine the involvement of these regions in the expression of instrumental behavior, we first implanted male rats with bilateral guide cannulae into their PL, then trained two responses to produce a sucrose pellet reinforcer, R1 and R2, each in a distinct context. R1 received extensive training and R2 received minimal training. Rats then received lithium chloride injections either paired or unpaired with sucrose pellets in both contexts until paired rats rejected all pellets. Following acquisition, in Experiment 1, rats received either an infusion of saline or baclofen/muscimol into the PL and were tested (in extinction) on both R1 and R2. In vehicle controls, both responses were goal-directed actions, as indicated by their sensitivity to reinforcer devaluation. PL inactivation decreased expression of the minimally-trained action without affecting expression of the extensively-trained action. Experiment 2 utilized the same experimental design but with IL inactivation at test. The extensively-trained response was again a goal-directed action. However, now expression of the extensively-trained goal-directed action was suppressed by IL inactivation. The overall pattern of results suggests that the PL is involved in expression of minimally trained goal-directed behavior while the IL is involved in expression of extensively trained goal-directed behavior. This implies that the PL does not control all types of actions and the IL can control some types of actions. These results expand upon the traditional view that the PL controls action while the IL controls habit.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.nlm.2018.07.010

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • In Shipman et al. (2018), inactivation of prelimbic cortex suppressed moderately trained but not extensively trained instrumental behavior, and inactivation of infralimbic cortex suppressed the extensively trained but not moderately trained response.

    “We found that inactivation of the prelimbic cortex suppressed moderately trained (but not extensively trained) instrumental behavior, and that inactivation of infralimbic cortex suppressed the extensively trained (but not moderately trained) response.”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Shipman et al., 2018

  • Effects of reinforcer devaluation in Shipman et al. (2018) suggested that both the moderately trained R2 and extensively trained R1 were goal-directed actions.

    “But there was a rub: The effects of reinforcer devaluation suggested that both the moderately trained R2 and extensively trained R1 were goal-directed actions.”

    From Context, attention, and the switch between habit and goal-direction in behavior (2021) · cites this paper as Shipman et al., 2018

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Shipman, M. L., Trask, S., Bouton, M. E., & Green, J. T.
Affiliations
University of Vermont (US)
Corresponding author
  • Shipman, Megan L.
  • Green, John T.
Venue
Neurobiology of Learning and Memory
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-11
Volume
155
Pages
164-172
ISSN
1074-7427 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2884077085
Cited by
56
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 10
FWCI
4.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neurobiology of Learning and Memory (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
NIH (R01 DA033123)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Keywords
prelimbic cortex, infralimbic cortex, goal-directed behavior, habit, reinforcer devaluation, lithium chloride, muscimol, baclofen, training history, extinction
MeSH terms
Animals, Baclofen, Behavior, Animal, Conditioning, Operant, Goals, Gyrus Cinguli, Male, Motor Activity, Muscimol, Rats, Wistar, Prefrontal Cortex, Rats, GABA-A Receptor Agonists, GABA-B Receptor Agonists

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review