Brain mechanisms underlying apathy

Campbell Le Heron, Clay B Holroyd, John Salamone, Masud Husain, Campbell Le Heron, Clay B Holroyd, John Salamone, Masud Husain

Abstract

The past few decades have seen growing interest in the neuropsychiatric syndrome of apathy, conceptualised as a loss of motivation manifesting as a reduction of goal-directed behaviour. Apathy occurs frequently, and with substantial impact on quality of life, in a broad range of neurological and psychiatric conditions. Apathy is also consistently associated with neuroimaging changes in specific medial frontal cortex and subcortical structures, suggesting that disruption of a common systems-level mechanism may underlie its development, irrespective of the condition that causes it. In parallel with this growing recognition of the clinical importance of apathy, significant advances have been made in understanding normal motivated behaviour in humans and animals. These developments have occurred at several different conceptual levels, from work linking neural structures and neuromodulatory systems to specific aspects of motivated behaviour, to higher order computational models that aim to unite these findings within frameworks for normal goal-directed behaviour. In this review we develop a conceptual framework for understanding pathological apathy based on this current understanding of normal motivated behaviour. We first introduce prominent theories of motivated behaviour-which often involves sequences of actions towards a goal that needs to be maintained across time. Next, we outline the behavioural effects of disrupting these processes in animal models, highlighting the specific effects of these manipulations on different components of motivated behaviour. Finally, we relate these findings to clinical apathy, demonstrating the homologies between this basic neuroscience work and emerging behavioural and physiological evidence from patient studies of this syndrome.

Keywords: apathy; cognitive neuroscience; decision making; effort; goal-directed behaviour; motivation; reward.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing interests: None declared.

© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2019. Re-use permitted under CC BY. Published by BMJ.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Conceptual framework and brain basis of motivated behaviour. The translation of value (reinforcer) information into a behavioural response can be conceptualised as three distinct processes. (A) A valuation system computes the subjective value (ie, allowing for current internal states and costs to obtain the reinforcer) of the current and potential events. (B) A mediating system integrates this reinforcer/cost information to activate the motor system towards particular goals. (C) A motor system produces behaviour towards motivationally relevant stimuli. Furthermore, these processes occur along two distinct neurocognitive dimensions (right side of panel). (1—vertical axis) Behaviour can be activated by flexible, but computationally demanding, goal-directed systems, which actively represent the outcome of potential actions along with the costs of these actions. It can also be activated by inflexible, simpler habitual systems, which activate responses based on previously learnt stimulus-response mappings. (2—horizontal axis) Motor control functions are hierarchically organised, such that complex behaviours are represented as higher level, abstract actions (eg, fly to London) as well as the lower level subcomponent behaviours (eg, book a flight, move mouse cursor upwards…). Outcome feedback and learning occur at all hierarchical levels to inform future behaviour. Such hierarchical arrangements likely occur within both goal-directed (predominantly cortical) and habitual (predominantly subcortical) systems. (D) These processes are instantiated within a complex network of reciprocally connected cortical and subcortical brain regions, under the influence of the mesolimbic dopaminergic system. A single brain region likely contributes to more than one process, but with specialisation. Hence the value system predominantly involves the vmPFC and, the motor system predominantly pMCC, SMA, ACC and the dorsal striatum (including the caudate and the putamen), while the VS, ACC and mesolimbic dopamine (originating in VTA) form the mediating system. This gradient of function is represented in the figure by the gradual change from gold (reinforcer) to green (motor). ACC, anterior cingulate cortex; pMCC, posterior mid-cingulate cortex; SMA, supplementary motor area; vmPFC, ventromedial prefrontal cortex; VS, ventral striatum; VTA, ventral tegmental area.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Effects of dopaminergic and anatomical lesions on phases of motivated behaviour. (A) Motivated behaviour takes place in two distinct phases. The consummatory phase involves direct interaction with the motivational stimulus, whereas the instrumental phase describes the behaviours required to obtain this stimulus. Instrumental behaviours are both directional (towards or away from stimuli) and activational (energising), allowing organisms to overcome obstacles separating them from salient stimuli. Thus, organisms pay response ‘costs’ to access motivationally relevant goals. (B) Effort-based choice is often assessed in rodents using one of two experimental set-ups. Animals can be free to choose between pressing a lever (effort cost) a fixed number of times (ratio can be varied) to receive a preferred reinforcer, or accessing standard lab chow (less preferred reinforcer) at any point. (C) Alternatively a T-maze set-up allows animals to choose between a high-reward, high-effort cost option and a low-reward, lower cost option. (D) Both low-dose systemic dopamine antagonists and local (nucleus accumbens) dopamine depletion or antagonism bias responses towards low-effort, low-reward options, without affecting reward preference (when effort costs are equalised) or motor ability. Thus interference with the dopaminergic system reduces animals’ willingness to undertake costs to access motivationally relevant goals. (E) Anterior cingulate cortex lesions produce very similar changes in behaviour. Prior to the lesion, rodents preferred to climb a 30 cm barrier to obtain high rewards (A and B on graph). Post lesion, the behaviour changed dramatically, with rodents now choosing the low-effort, low-reward option (C). However, equalising effort costs led to rodents again choosing the high-reward option (D), indicating reward preference was not altered by the lesion. Adapted from Aberman and Salamone, 1999 (s33); Walton et al with permission. DA, dopamine; HR, high reward (arm)
Figure 3
Figure 3
A neurocognitive framework for apathy. (A) Apathy could result from alterations in the processes underlying the translation of value information to actions, which are often described under the term effort-based decision making. Reduced willingness to exert effort for reward (effort-based choice—’is it worth it’), as well as impaired persistence and vigour towards goals (‘is it still worth it’), could lead to the reduced goal-directed behaviour that characterises apathy. Similarly changes in learning from the reinforcing outcomes of actions could change the likelihood of the same behaviour being repeated in the future (’was it worth it’). These changes could be driven by anatomical disruption of key neural regions (such as the anterior cingulate cortex and ventral striatum) and/or changes in neuromodulators such as the mesolimbic dopaminergic system. (B) A large number of studies, across disorders and using different imaging modalities (eg, positron emission tomography), have associated disruption of the ventral striatum and anterior cingulate with apathy. (C) Reward sensitivity can be assessed by measuring the degree of pupillary dilatation to reinforcer information. Apathy is associated with impaired autonomic (pupillary) responses to reward in both genetic cerebral small vessel disease (shown) and PD. (D) Effort-based choice can be assessed by sequentially offering patients varying levels of reward in return for exerting varying levels of effort. Apathy is associated with reduced willingness to exert effort for reward. This change is not global, but is driven by reduced sensitivity to rewarding outcomes without a change in sensitivity to effort costs, in both patients with genetic small vessel disease and PD (shown). (E) Gambling tasks, in which patients select an option and are then provided feedback about whether they ‘won’ or ‘lost’, allow assessment of outcome-related physiological changes, which are thought to drive learning. PD patients with apathy show blunted outcome-related electrophysiological activity compared with non-apathetic patients. Adapted from Le Heron et al 2018, Martínez-Horta et al, Robert et al 2014 and Schroeter et al 2013 with permission. CADASIL, cerebral autosomal dominant arteriopathy with subcortical infarcts and leucoencephalopathy; MVC, maximal voluntary contraction; PD, Parkinson’s disease.

References

    1. Marin RS. Apathy: a neuropsychiatric syndrome. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci 1991;3:243–54. 10.1176/jnp.3.3.243
    1. Levy R, Dubois B. Apathy and the functional anatomy of the prefrontal cortex-basal ganglia circuits. Cereb Cortex 2006;16:916–28. 10.1093/cercor/bhj043
    1. Aarsland D, Marsh L, Schrag A. Neuropsychiatric symptoms in Parkinson's disease. Mov Disord 2009;24:2175–86. 10.1002/mds.22589
    1. Mayo NE, Fellows LK, Scott SC, et al. . A longitudinal view of apathy and its impact after stroke. Stroke 2009;40:3299–307. 10.1161/STROKEAHA.109.554410
    1. Martinez-Fernandez R, Pelissier P, Quesada JL, et al. . Postoperative apathy can neutralise benefits in quality of life after subthalamic stimulation for Parkinson's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2016;87:311–8. 10.1136/jnnp-2014-310189
    1. Radakovic R, Harley C, Abrahams S, et al. . A systematic review of the validity and reliability of apathy scales in neurodegenerative conditions. Int Psychogeriatr 2015;27:903–23. 10.1017/S1041610214002221
    1. Le Heron C, Apps MAJ, Husain M. The anatomy of apathy: A neurocognitive framework for amotivated behaviour. Neuropsychologia 2017;118(B):54–67. 10.1016/j.neuropsychologia.2017.07.003
    1. Kos C, van Tol MJ, Marsman JB, et al. . Neural correlates of apathy in patients with neurodegenerative disorders, acquired brain injury, and psychiatric disorders. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2016;69:381–401. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.012
    1. Hamid AA, Pettibone JR, Mabrouk OS, et al. . Mesolimbic dopamine signals the value of work. Nat Neurosci 2016;19:117–26. 10.1038/nn.4173
    1. Walton ME, Bannerman DM, Rushworth MF. The role of rat medial frontal cortex in effort-based decision making. J Neurosci 2002;22:10996–1003. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.22-24-10996.2002
    1. Salamone JD, Yohn SE, López-Cruz L, et al. . Activational and effort-related aspects of motivation: neural mechanisms and implications for psychopathology. Brain 2016;139(Pt 5):1325–47. 10.1093/brain/aww050
    1. Kolling N, Wittmann MK, Behrens TE, et al. . Value, search, persistence and model updating in anterior cingulate cortex. Nat Neurosci 2016;19:1280–5. 10.1038/nn.4382
    1. Vassena E, Holroyd CB, Alexander WH. Computational models of anterior cingulate cortex: at the crossroads between prediction and effort. Front Neurosci 2017;11:316 10.3389/fnins.2017.00316
    1. Haber SN, Behrens TE. The neural network underlying incentive-based learning: implications for interpreting circuit disruptions in psychiatric disorders. Neuron 2014;83:1019–39. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.031
    1. O'Doherty J, Dayan P, Schultz J, et al. . Dissociable roles of ventral and dorsal striatum in instrumental conditioning. Science 2004;304:452–4. 10.1126/science.1094285
    1. Padoa-Schioppa C. Neurobiology of economic choice: a good-based model. Annu Rev Neurosci. 2011;34:333–59. 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113648
    1. Levy DJ, Glimcher PW. The root of all value: a neural common currency for choice. Curr Opin Neurobiol 2012;22:1027–38. 10.1016/j.conb.2012.06.001
    1. Mogenson GJ, Jones DL, Yim CY. From motivation to action: functional interface between the limbic system and the motor system. Prog Neurobiol 1980;14:69–97. 10.1016/0301-0082(80)90018-0
    1. Nunes EJ, Randall PA, Podurgiel S, et al. . Nucleus accumbens neurotransmission and effort-related choice behavior in food motivation: effects of drugs acting on dopamine, adenosine, and muscarinic acetylcholine receptors. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 2013;37(9 Pt A):2015–25. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.04.002
    1. Bailey MR, Simpson EH, Balsam PD. Neural substrates underlying effort, time, and risk-based decision making in motivated behavior. Neurobiol Learn Mem 2016;133:233–56. 10.1016/j.nlm.2016.07.015
    1. Berke JD. What does dopamine mean? Nat Neurosci 2018;21:787–93. 10.1038/s41593-018-0152-y
    1. Schultz W. Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: a two-component response. Nat Rev Neurosci 2016;17:183–95. 10.1038/nrn.2015.26
    1. Holroyd CB, McClure SM. Hierarchical control over effortful behavior by rodent medial frontal cortex: a computational model. Psychol Rev 2015;122:54–83. 10.1037/a0038339
    1. Daw ND, Niv Y, Dayan P. Uncertainty-based competition between prefrontal and dorsolateral striatal systems for behavioral control. Nat Neurosci 2005;8:1704–11. 10.1038/nn1560
    1. Kouneiher F, Charron S, Koechlin E. Motivation and cognitive control in the human prefrontal cortex. Nat Neurosci 2009;12:939–45. 10.1038/nn.2321
    1. Holroyd CB, Yeung N. Motivation of extended behaviors by anterior cingulate cortex. Trends Cogn Sci 2012;16:122–8. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.12.008
    1. Alexander WH, Brown JW. Frontal cortex function as derived from hierarchical predictive coding. Sci Rep 2018;8:3843 10.1038/s41598-018-21407-9
    1. Salamone JD, Correa M. The mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine. Neuron 2012;76:470–85. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021
    1. Kleinginna PR, Kleinginna AM. A categorized list of motivation definitions, with a suggestion for a consensual definition. Motiv Emot 1981;5:263–91. 10.1007/BF00993889
    1. Salamone JD, Cousins MS, Bucher S. Anhedonia or anergia? Effects of haloperidol and nucleus accumbens dopamine depletion on instrumental response selection in a T-maze cost/benefit procedure. Behav Brain Res 1994;65:221–9. 10.1016/0166-4328(94)90108-2
    1. Berridge KC. The debate over dopamine's role in reward: the case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology 2007;191:391–431. 10.1007/s00213-006-0578-x
    1. Hauber W, Sommer S. Prefrontostriatal circuitry regulates effort-related decision making. Cereb Cortex 2009;19:2240–7. 10.1093/cercor/bhn241
    1. Martínez-Horta S, Riba J, de Bobadilla RF, et al. . Apathy in Parkinson's disease: neurophysiological evidence of impaired incentive processing. J Neurosci 2014;34:5918–26. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.0251-14.2014
    1. Muhammed K, Manohar S, Ben Yehuda M, et al. . Reward sensitivity deficits modulated by dopamine are associated with apathy in Parkinson's disease. Brain 2016;139:2706–21. Jul 10.1093/brain/aww188
    1. Le Heron C, Manohar S, Plant O. Dysfunctional effort-based decision making underlies apathy in genetic cerebral small vessel disease. Brain 2018;In Press
    1. Simon JJ, Biller A, Walther S, et al. . Neural correlates of reward processing in schizophrenia--relationship to apathy and depression. Schizophr Res. 2010;118:154–61. 10.1016/j.schres.2009.11.007
    1. Strauss GP, Waltz JA, Gold JM. A review of reward processing and motivational impairment in schizophrenia. Schizophr Bull 2014;40(Suppl 2):S107–S116. 10.1093/schbul/sbt197
    1. Le Heron C, Plant O, Manohar S, et al. . Distinct effects of apathy and dopamine on effort-based decision-making in Parkinson's disease. Brain 2018;141:1455–69. 10.1093/brain/awy110
    1. Hartmann MN, Hager OM, Reimann AV, et al. . Apathy but not diminished expression in schizophrenia is associated with discounting of monetary rewards by physical effort. Schizophr Bull 2015;41:503–12. 10.1093/schbul/sbu102
    1. Le Bouc R, Rigoux L, Schmidt L, et al. . Computational dissection of dopamine motor and motivational functions in humans. J Neurosci 2016;36:6623–33. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3078-15.2016
    1. Bonnelle V, Manohar S, Behrens T, et al. . Individual differences in premotor brain systems underlie behavioral apathy. Cereb Cortex 2016;26:807–19. 10.1093/cercor/bhv247
    1. Pearson JM, Watson KK, Platt ML. Decision making: the neuroethological turn. Neuron 2014;82:950–65. 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.04.037
    1. Strauss GP, Frank MJ, Waltz JA, et al. . Deficits in positive reinforcement learning and uncertainty-driven exploration are associated with distinct aspects of negative symptoms in schizophrenia. Biol Psychiatry 2011;69:424–31. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2010.10.015
    1. Rochat L, Van der Linden M, Renaud O, et al. . Poor reward sensitivity and apathy after stroke: implication of basal ganglia. Neurology 2013;81:1674–80. 10.1212/01.wnl.0000435290.49598.1d
    1. Hauser TU, Eldar E, Dolan RJ. Separate mesocortical and mesolimbic pathways encode effort and reward learning signals. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2017;114:E7395–404. 10.1073/pnas.1705643114
    1. Rolls ET. Limbic systems for emotion and for memory, but no single limbic system. Cortex 2015;62:119–57. 10.1016/j.cortex.2013.12.005
    1. Kaiser S, Simon JJ, Kalis A, et al. . The cognitive and neural basis of option generation and subsequent choice. Cogn Affect Behav Neurosci 2013;13:814–29. 10.3758/s13415-013-0175-5
    1. Ang YS, Manohar S, Plant O, et al. . Dopamine modulates option generation for behavior. Curr Biol 2018;28:1561–9. 10.1016/j.cub.2018.03.069
    1. Koechlin E, Ody C, Kouneiher F. The architecture of cognitive control in the human prefrontal cortex. Science 2003;302:1181–5. 10.1126/science.1088545
    1. Pagonabarraga J, Kulisevsky J, Strafella AP, et al. . Apathy in Parkinson's disease: clinical features, neural substrates, diagnosis, and treatment. Lancet Neurol 2015;14:518–31. 10.1016/S1474-4422(15)00019-8
    1. Ducharme S, Price BH, Dickerson BC. Apathy: a neurocircuitry model based on frontotemporal dementia. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2018;89:389–96. 10.1136/jnnp-2017-316277
    1. Weintraub D, Moberg PJ, Culbertson WC, et al. . Dimensions of executive function in Parkinson's disease. Dement Geriatr Cogn Disord 2005;20:140–4. 10.1159/000087043
    1. Robert P, Onyike CU, Leentjens AF, et al. . Proposed diagnostic criteria for apathy in Alzheimer's disease and other neuropsychiatric disorders. Eur Psychiatry 2009;24:98–104. 10.1016/j.eurpsy.2008.09.001
    1. Balleine BW, O'Doherty JP. Human and rodent homologies in action control: corticostriatal determinants of goal-directed and habitual action. Neuropsychopharmacology 2010;35:48–69. 10.1038/npp.2009.131
    1. Kurniawan IT, Guitart-Masip M, Dolan RJ. Dopamine and effort-based decision making. Front Neurosci 2011;5:1–10. 10.3389/fnins.2011.00081
    1. Thobois S, Lhommée E, Klinger H, et al. . Parkinsonian apathy responds to dopaminergic stimulation of D2/D3 receptors with piribedil. Brain 2013;136(Pt 5):1568–77. 10.1093/brain/awt067
    1. Adam R, Leff A, Sinha N, et al. . Dopamine reverses reward insensitivity in apathy following globus pallidus lesions. Cortex 2013;49:1292–303. 10.1016/j.cortex.2012.04.013
    1. Chung SJ, Asgharnejad M, Bauer L, et al. . Evaluation of rotigotine transdermal patch for the treatment of depressive symptoms in patients with Parkinson's disease. Expert Opin Pharmacother 2016;17:1453–61. 10.1080/14656566.2016.1202917
    1. Callegari I, Mattei C, Benassi F, et al. . Agomelatine improves apathy in frontotemporal dementia. Neurodegener Dis 2016;16:352–6. 10.1159/000445873
    1. Devos D, Moreau C, Maltête D, et al. . Rivastigmine in apathetic but dementia and depression-free patients with Parkinson's disease: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised clinical trial. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 2014;85:668–74. 10.1136/jnnp-2013-306439

Source: PubMed

3
Tilaa