Relief as a reward: hedonic and neural responses to safety from pain

Siri Leknes, Michael Lee, Chantal Berna, Jesper Andersson, Irene Tracey, Siri Leknes, Michael Lee, Chantal Berna, Jesper Andersson, Irene Tracey

Abstract

Relief fits the definition of a reward. Unlike other reward types the pleasantness of relief depends on the violation of a negative expectation, yet this has not been investigated using neuroimaging approaches. We hypothesized that the degree of negative expectation depends on state (dread) and trait (pessimism) sensitivity. Of the brain regions that are involved in mediating pleasure, the nucleus accumbens also signals unexpected reward and positive prediction error. We hypothesized that accumbens activity reflects the level of negative expectation and subsequent pleasant relief. Using fMRI and two purpose-made tasks, we compared hedonic and BOLD responses to relief with responses during an appetitive reward task in 18 healthy volunteers. We expected some similarities in task responses, reflecting common neural substrates implicated across reward types. However, we also hypothesized that relief responses would differ from appetitive rewards in the nucleus accumbens, since only relief pleasantness depends on negative expectations. The results confirmed these hypotheses. Relief and appetitive reward task activity converged in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex, which also correlated with appetitive reward pleasantness ratings. In contrast, dread and pessimism scores correlated with relief but not with appetitive reward hedonics. Moreover, only relief pleasantness covaried with accumbens activation. Importantly, the accumbens signal appeared to specifically reflect individual differences in anticipation of the adverse event (dread, pessimism) but was uncorrelated to appetitive reward hedonics. In conclusion, relief differs from appetitive rewards due to its reliance on negative expectations, the violation of which is reflected in relief-related accumbens activation.

Conflict of interest statement

Competing Interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Figures

Figure 1. Experimental design and behavioural ratings.
Figure 1. Experimental design and behavioural ratings.
A: Overview of relief and appetitive reward task design and timing of events. Each relief task trial began with a 6-second anticipatory period, in which participants expected intense pain. 50% of anticipation periods were followed by intense pain for 5 seconds; in the remaining events a safety cue was presented on the screen for 5 seconds. In the appetitive reward task, participants imagined pleasant scenarios (activities involving appetitive rewards) or neutral scenarios according to the text on the screen. The graphs in panel B depict behavioural ratings from the relief and the appetitive reward tasks. ** denotes p

Figure 2. Task-induced brain activation patterns.

A:…

Figure 2. Task-induced brain activation patterns.

A: Main effect of relief task (red) and appetitive…

Figure 2. Task-induced brain activation patterns.
A: Main effect of relief task (red) and appetitive reward task (yellow). B: The overlap between the two tasks (green) and between-tasks contrasts (light and dark blue). MRI images are overlaid on the normalised average of the whole group's structural scans, and thresholded using a cluster-based approach with Z>2.3, p

Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.

Hedonic…

Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.

Hedonic ratings of relief were significantly positively correlated with…

Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.
Hedonic ratings of relief were significantly positively correlated with ratings of anticipatory dread in the relief task (A) as well as with hedonic ratings from the appetitive reward task (B). As hypothesised, relief hedonics also significantly covaried with optimism scores, such that more pessimistic participants reported higher relief pleasantness (C). Panel D shows a significant association between relief hedonics and accumbens (NAc) activation in the relief task. In contrast, hedonic ratings in the reward task did not covary with NAc activity; these ratings correlated with voxels in the rACC/mPFC region (E).

Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to…

Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to safety.

A: Consistent with the observed effect of…

Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to safety.
A: Consistent with the observed effect of pessimism on relief hedonics, pessimism scores also correlated with voxels in the left and right NAc in the relief task. To illustrate this relationship, we split participants into more pessimistic and more optimistic groups using the median score on the LOT-R. The more pessimistic group (n = 7) showed higher relief pleasantness (p = 0.035, one-tailed), and the two groups showed opposite BOLD responses in the left and right nucleus accumbens (NAc) during unexpected safety (B). In contrast, both groups showed positive NAc responses during the pleasant scenarios in the appetitive reward task (C). Duration of stimuli are indicated by the white horizontal bars. Error bars indicate SEM. The MRI image shows the standard MNI brain.
Similar articles
Cited by
References
    1. Tanimoto H, Heisenberg M, Gerber B. Experimental psychology: Event timing turns punishment to reward. Nature. 2004;430:983. - PubMed
    1. Leknes S, Tracey I. A common neurobiology for pain and pleasure. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9:314–320. - PubMed
    1. Leknes S, Brooks JCW, Wiech K, Tracey I. Pain relief as an opponent process: a psychophysical investigation. Eur J Neurosci. 2008;28:794–801. - PubMed
    1. Andreatta M, Muhlberger A, Yarali A, Gerber B, Pauli P. A rift between implicit and explicit conditioned valence in human pain relief learning. Proc Biol Sci. 2010;277:2411–2416. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith MP, Buchanan G. Acquisition of secondary reward by cues associated with shock reduction. J Exp Psychol. 1954;48:123–126. - PubMed
Show all 53 references
Publication types
[x]
Cite
Copy Download .nbib
Format: AMA APA MLA NLM
Figure 2. Task-induced brain activation patterns.
Figure 2. Task-induced brain activation patterns.
A: Main effect of relief task (red) and appetitive reward task (yellow). B: The overlap between the two tasks (green) and between-tasks contrasts (light and dark blue). MRI images are overlaid on the normalised average of the whole group's structural scans, and thresholded using a cluster-based approach with Z>2.3, p

Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.

Hedonic…

Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.

Hedonic ratings of relief were significantly positively correlated with…

Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.
Hedonic ratings of relief were significantly positively correlated with ratings of anticipatory dread in the relief task (A) as well as with hedonic ratings from the appetitive reward task (B). As hypothesised, relief hedonics also significantly covaried with optimism scores, such that more pessimistic participants reported higher relief pleasantness (C). Panel D shows a significant association between relief hedonics and accumbens (NAc) activation in the relief task. In contrast, hedonic ratings in the reward task did not covary with NAc activity; these ratings correlated with voxels in the rACC/mPFC region (E).

Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to…

Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to safety.

A: Consistent with the observed effect of…

Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to safety.
A: Consistent with the observed effect of pessimism on relief hedonics, pessimism scores also correlated with voxels in the left and right NAc in the relief task. To illustrate this relationship, we split participants into more pessimistic and more optimistic groups using the median score on the LOT-R. The more pessimistic group (n = 7) showed higher relief pleasantness (p = 0.035, one-tailed), and the two groups showed opposite BOLD responses in the left and right nucleus accumbens (NAc) during unexpected safety (B). In contrast, both groups showed positive NAc responses during the pleasant scenarios in the appetitive reward task (C). Duration of stimuli are indicated by the white horizontal bars. Error bars indicate SEM. The MRI image shows the standard MNI brain.
Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.
Figure 3. Correlation and regression analyses.
Hedonic ratings of relief were significantly positively correlated with ratings of anticipatory dread in the relief task (A) as well as with hedonic ratings from the appetitive reward task (B). As hypothesised, relief hedonics also significantly covaried with optimism scores, such that more pessimistic participants reported higher relief pleasantness (C). Panel D shows a significant association between relief hedonics and accumbens (NAc) activation in the relief task. In contrast, hedonic ratings in the reward task did not covary with NAc activity; these ratings correlated with voxels in the rACC/mPFC region (E).
Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to…
Figure 4. Pessimism and BOLD response to safety.
A: Consistent with the observed effect of pessimism on relief hedonics, pessimism scores also correlated with voxels in the left and right NAc in the relief task. To illustrate this relationship, we split participants into more pessimistic and more optimistic groups using the median score on the LOT-R. The more pessimistic group (n = 7) showed higher relief pleasantness (p = 0.035, one-tailed), and the two groups showed opposite BOLD responses in the left and right nucleus accumbens (NAc) during unexpected safety (B). In contrast, both groups showed positive NAc responses during the pleasant scenarios in the appetitive reward task (C). Duration of stimuli are indicated by the white horizontal bars. Error bars indicate SEM. The MRI image shows the standard MNI brain.

References

    1. Tanimoto H, Heisenberg M, Gerber B. Experimental psychology: Event timing turns punishment to reward. Nature. 2004;430:983.
    1. Leknes S, Tracey I. A common neurobiology for pain and pleasure. Nat Rev Neurosci. 2008;9:314–320.
    1. Leknes S, Brooks JCW, Wiech K, Tracey I. Pain relief as an opponent process: a psychophysical investigation. Eur J Neurosci. 2008;28:794–801.
    1. Andreatta M, Muhlberger A, Yarali A, Gerber B, Pauli P. A rift between implicit and explicit conditioned valence in human pain relief learning. Proc Biol Sci. 2010;277:2411–2416.
    1. Smith MP, Buchanan G. Acquisition of secondary reward by cues associated with shock reduction. J Exp Psychol. 1954;48:123–126.
    1. Scott DJ, Stohler CS, Egnatuk CM, Wang H, Koeppe RA, et al. Individual differences in reward responding explain placebo-induced expectations and effects. Neuron. 2007;55:325–336.
    1. Seymour B, O'Doherty JP, Koltzenburg M, Wiech K, Frackowiak R, et al. Opponent appetitive-aversive neural processes underlie predictive learning of pain relief. Nat Neurosci. 2005;8:1234–1240.
    1. Kim H, Shimojo S, O'Doherty JP. Is avoiding an aversive outcome rewarding? Neural substrates of avoidance learning in the human brain. PLoS Biol. 2006;4:e233.
    1. Ursu S, Carter CS. Outcome representations, counterfactual comparisons and the human orbitofrontal cortex: implications for neuroimaging studies of decision-making. Cognitive Brain Research. 2005;23:51–60.
    1. Cabanac M. Sensory pleasure. Q Rev Biol. 1979;54:1–29.
    1. Berns GS, McClure SM, Pagnoni G, Montague PR. Predictability modulates human brain response to reward. J Neurosci. 2001;21:2793–2798.
    1. Schultz W. Behavioral dopamine signals. Trends Neurosci. 2007;30:203–210.
    1. Abler B, Walter H, Erk S, Kammerer H, Spitzer M. Prediction error as a linear function of reward probability is coded in human nucleus accumbens. Neuroimage. 2006;31:790–795.
    1. Bensafi M, Porter J, Pouliot S, Mainland J, Johnson B, et al. Olfactomotor activity during imagery mimics that during perception. Nat Neurosci. 2003;6:1142–1144.
    1. Halpern AR, Zatorre RJ, Bouffard M, Johnson JA. Behavioral and neural correlates of perceived and imagined musical timbre. Neuropsychologia. 2004;42:1281–1292.
    1. Jackson PL, Brunet E, Meltzoff AN, Decety J. Empathy examined through the neural mechanisms involved in imagining how I feel versus how you feel pain. Neuropsychologia. 2006;44:752–761.
    1. Brooks JCW, Zambreanu L, Godinez A, Craig AD, Tracey I. Somatotopic organisation of the human insula to painful heat studied with high resolution functional imaging. NeuroImage. 2005;27:201–209.
    1. Fairhurst M, Wiech K, Dunckley P, Tracey I. Anticipatory brainstem activity predicts neural processing of pain in humans. Pain. 2007;128:101–110.
    1. Wise RG, Rogers R, Painter D, Bantick S, Ploghaus A, et al. Combining fMRI with a pharmacokinetic model to determine which brain areas activated by painful stimulation are specifically modulated by remifentanil. Neuroimage. 2002;16:999–1014.
    1. Snaith R, Hamilton M, Morley S, Humayan A, Hargreaves D, et al. A scale for the assessment of hedonic tone the Snaith-Hamilton Pleasure Scale. Br J Psychiatry. 1995;167:99–103.
    1. Scheier MF, Carver CS, Bridges MW. Distinguishing optimism from neuroticism (and trait anxiety, self-mastery, and self-esteem): a reevaluation of the Life Orientation Test. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1994;67:1063–1078.
    1. Rauch WA, Schweizer K, Moosbrugger H. Method effects due to social desirability as a parsimonious explanation of the deviation from unidimensionality in LOT-R scores. Pers Individ Dif. 2007;42:1597–1607.
    1. Jenkinson M, Smith S. A Global Optimisation Method for Robust Affine Registration of Brain Images. Medical Image Analysis. 2001;5:143–156.
    1. Smith SM. Fast robust automated brain extraction. Hum Brain Mapp. 2002;17:143–155.
    1. Woolrich MW, Ripley BD, Brady M, Smith SM. Temporal autocorrelation in univariate linear modeling of FMRI data. Neuroimage. 2001;14:1370–1386.
    1. Jenkinson M, Bannister P, Brady M, Smith S. Improved Optimisation for the Robust and Accurate Linear Registration and Motion Correction of Brain Images. NeuroImage. 2002;17:825–841.
    1. Woolrich MW, Behrens TEJ, Beckmann CF, Jenkinson M, Smith SM. Multi-level linear modelling for FMRI group analysis using Bayesian inference. Neuroimage. 2004;21:1732–1747.
    1. Beckmann C, Jenkinson M, Smith SM. General multi-level linear modelling for group analysis in FMRI. NeuroImage. 2003;20:1052–1063.
    1. Worsley KJ. Statistical analysis of Activation Images. In: Jezzard P, Matthews PM, Smith SM, editors. Functional MRI: An Introduction to Methods. Ch 14. Oxford: OUP; 2001.
    1. Worsley KJ, Marrett S, Neelin P, Vandal AC, Friston KJ, et al. A unified statistical approach for determining significant signals in images of cerebral activation. Human Brain Mapping. 1996;4:58–73.
    1. Drevets WC, Gautier C, Price JC, Kupfer DJ, Kinahan PE, et al. Amphetamine-induced dopamine release in human ventral striatum correlates with euphoria. Biol Psychiatry. 2001;49:81–96.
    1. Knutson B, Fong G, Adams C, Varner J, Hommer D. Dissociation of reward anticipation and outcome with event-related fMRI. Neuroreport. 2001;12:3683–3687.
    1. Knutson B, Fong GW, Bennett SM, Adams CM, Hommer D. A region of mesial prefrontal cortex tracks monetarily rewarding outcomes: characterization with rapid event-related fMRI. NeuroImage. 2003;18:263–272.
    1. O'Doherty J, Winston J, Critchley H, Perrett D, Burt DM, et al. Beauty in a smile: the role of medial orbitofrontal cortex in facial attractiveness. Neuropsychologia. 2003;41:147–155.
    1. Kringelbach ML, O'Doherty J, Rolls ET, Andrews C. Activation of the Human Orbitofrontal Cortex to a Liquid Food Stimulus is Correlated with its Subjective Pleasantness. Cereb Cortex. 2003;13:1064–1071.
    1. Smith KS, Berridge KC. Opioid Limbic Circuit for Reward: Interaction between Hedonic Hotspots of Nucleus Accumbens and Ventral Pallidum. J Neurosci. 2007;27:1594–1605.
    1. Valet M, Sprenger T, Boecker H, Willoch F, Rummeny E, et al. Distraction modulates connectivity of the cingulo-frontal cortex and the midbrain during pain–an fMRI analysis. Pain. 2004;109:399–408.
    1. Wagner KJ, Sprenger T, Kochs EF, Tolle TR, Valet M, et al. Imaging human cerebral pain modulation by dose-dependent opioid analgesia: a positron emission tomography activation study using remifentanil. Anesthesiology. 2007;106:548–556.
    1. Peyron R, Faillenot I, Mertens P, Laurent B, Garcia-Larrea L. Motor cortex stimulation in neuropathic pain. Correlations between analgesic effect and hemodynamic changes in the brain. A PET study. NeuroImage. 2007;34:310–321.
    1. Baumgartner U, Buchholz HG, Bellosevich A, Magerl W, Siessmeier T, et al. High opiate receptor binding potential in the human lateral pain system. Neuroimage. 2006;30:692–699.
    1. Bingel U, Lorenz J, Schoell E, Weiller C, Buchel C. Mechanisms of placebo analgesia: rACC recruitment of a subcortical antinociceptive network. Pain. 2006;120:8–15.
    1. Petrovic P, Kalso E, Petersson KM, Ingvar M. Placebo and Opioid Analgesia– Imaging a Shared Neuronal Network. Science. 2002;295:1737–1740.
    1. Wager TD, Rilling JK, Smith EE, Sokolik A, Casey KL, et al. Placebo-Induced Changes in fMRI in the Anticipation and Experience of Pain. Science. 2004;303:1162–1167.
    1. Berns GS, Chappelow J, Cekic M, Zink CF, Pagnoni G, et al. Neurobiological Substrates of Dread. Science. 2006;312:754–758.
    1. Atlas LY, Bolger N, Lindquist MA, Wager TD. Brain Mediators of Predictive Cue Effects on Perceived Pain. J Neurosci. 2010;30:12964–12977.
    1. Keltner JR, Furst A, Fan C, Redfern R, Inglis B, et al. Isolating the Modulatory Effect of Expectation on Pain Transmission: A Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Study. J Neurosci. 2006;26:4437–4443.
    1. Koyama T, McHaffie JG, Laurienti PJ, Coghill RC. The subjective experience of pain: Where expectations become reality. PNAS. 2005;102:12950–12955.
    1. Mellers B, Schwartz A, Ritov I. Emotion-based choice. J Exp Psychol Gen. 1999;128:332–345.
    1. Summerfield C, Trittschuh EH, Monti JM, Mesulam MM, Egner T. Neural repetition suppression reflects fulfilled perceptual expectations. Nat Neurosci. 2008;11:1004–1006.
    1. Seymour B, McClure SM. Anchors, scales and the relative coding of value in the brain. Current Opinion in Neurobiology. 2008;18:173–178.
    1. Abler B, Erk S, Herwig U, Walter H. Anticipation of aversive stimuli activates extended amygdala in unipolar depression. J Psychiatr Res. 2007;41:511–522.
    1. Carver CS, Scheier MF. Optimism. In: Snyder CR, Lopez SJ, editors. Handbook of Positive Psychology. New York: Oxford University Press; 2005. pp. 231–243.
    1. Solomon RL, Corbit JD. An opponent-process theory of motivation: I. Temporal dynamics of affect. Psychol Rev. 1974;81:119–145.

Source: PubMed

3
購読する