Stimulation of the same MFB sites can both reward the instrumental performance it follows and motivate reward-seeking and consummatory responses that it precedes (
Margules and Olds, 1962). Again, lateral hypothalamic sites have been most frequently studied for stimulation-induced motivation of species-typical acts like feeding (
Wise, 1974), sexual behavior (
Roberts et al., 1967) or predatory attack (
MacDonnell and Flynn, 1966). Again, however, stimulation at other sites along portions of the MFB can also be effective (
Berntson, 1973;
Gratton and Wise, 1988a;
Gratton and Wise, 1988b). The directly activated fiber systems for stimulation-induced feeding have the same refractory periods and conduction velocities as those for stimulation-induced reward (
Gratton and Wise, 1988a;
Gratton and Wise, 1988b). In addition, food restriction and the adipocyte hormone leptin each modulate not only food consumption but also drug-seeking (
Shalev et al., 2001) and brain stimulation reward (
Fulton et al., 2004;
Fulton et al., 2000). Thus the same MFB circuitry appears to play a role in both the initiation of reward-seeking behavior (motivation) and the stamping in of response habits by the earned reward. The fact that MFB brain stimulation can not only reinforce the responses it follows but also energize (“prime”) the responses it precedes (
Gallistel, 1966;
Gallistel et al., 1974) partially explains the preference of the brain stimulation specialist for the term “reward” over the term “reinforce” (
Wise, 1989)
While lateral hypothalamic electrical stimulation can induce dopamine-dependent feeding in sated animals (
Phillips and Nikaido, 1975), it appears that this system plays a stronger role in reinforcement than in motivation. Indeed, it has been argued that the stimulation motivates feeding only after animals have learned, through trial and error, that the stimulation makes food reinforcing even under conditions of satiety (
Coons et al., 1965;
Mendelson, 1966). Thresholds for stimulation-induced feeding decrease with experience (
Wise, 1968), but even in experienced animals, it takes stronger levels of stimulation to motivate consummatory responding than to reinforce behavior. With current intensity at the same level, stimulation-induced reward requires longer stimulation trains (
Ball, 1970) and somewhat higher stimulation frequencies (
Gratton and Wise, 1988b) than does stimulation-induced feeding. This is consistent with the fact that free-feeding is more difficult to disrupt with neuroleptics (
Wise and Raptis, 1986) or with dopamine-depleting lesions (
Aberman and Salamone, 1999) than is food-rewarded lever-pressing (
Aberman and Salamone, 1999;
Wise et al., 1978a).
In assessing the relative contributions of reinforcing and motivational effects of dopamine, it must be remembered that severe depletion of forebrain dopamine (
Stricker and Zigmond, 1985;
Robinson et al., 2005) or large lateral hypothalamic lesions (
Teitelbaum and Epstein, 1962) cause profound deficits in arousal and motor function. Thus discussions of the motivational effects of the dopaminergic component of motivational circuitry properly revolve around studies involving lesions or doses of dopamine antagonists that leave arousal and motor function relatively intact or preparations where arousal is provided by some experimental manipulation (
Robinson et al., 2005). Even in the case of moderate levels of dopamine blockade, however, it has recently been suggested that moderate doses of dopamine antagonists interfere with the motivation to seek a reward rather than with the effectiveness of the reward once earned, that, in lay language, animals with impaired dopamine function no longer
want the reward but still
like it when they happen to get it (
Berridge and Robinson, 1998).
This view is falsified by a number of experiments showing that the deterioration of motivation that develops in animals tested under conditions of moderate dopamine receptor blockade is a consequence of the devalued effectiveness of the reward in this condition. Most telling is the fact that dopamine antagonists disrupt reward-seeking behavior only
after they disrupt the reinforcing effects of the reward. This is most evident in studies in which approach and consummatory responses are assessed in discrete trials (
Fouriezos et al., 1978;
McFarland and Ettenberg, 1995). For example, in a task where animals traversed a runway for a single intravenous heroin injection each day, running speed was normal on the day haloperidol was given, but was slow on the following day. Thus haloperidol disrupted the reinforcing effect of heroin but not the response habit or the response-eliciting effectiveness of the runway cues in trained animals that had never had haloperidol before (
McFarland and Ettenberg, 1995); similar effects are seen with food reward (
McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998. The ability of dopamine antagonists to impair free-feeding (
Wise and Raptis, 1986) or lever-pressing for food (
Wise et al., 1978a) increases progressively, both within and across test days, as the animal experiences the food under the antagonist. Thus the devaluation of reward by the antagonist is remembered and the memory of reward under dopamine blockade is what degrades subsequent motivation. Neuroleptics degrade the remembrance of value of rewards past before they degrade the acceptance of rewards present.
Thus the importance of the dopamine system and its afferents for motivation is complex. Motivation is strongly influenced by situational cues in the case of well-learned habitual behavior. For example, sated animals that were trained to respond for food under conditions of hunger will continue to respond normally for food and to eat it, for a considerable period, when subsequently tested when sated (
Kimble, 1951;
Koch and Daniel, 1945). Indeed, animals trained to work for food will continue to work for it despite the availability of free food (
Jensen, 1963;
Morgan, 1974). Thus motivation of response habits is strongly influenced not only by internal states but also by external stimuli. The immediate motivating effects of external reward-predictive stimuli appear to be largely dopamine-independent so long as the arousal and motor function are not impaired and so long as the animal has not yet had experience with the reward in the dopamine-antagonized condition (
McFarland and Ettenberg, 1995;
McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998). Reward-predictive stimuli begin to lose their effectiveness, however, as the animal gains experience with the reward under conditions of dopamine blockade (
Fouriezos et al., 1978;
Fouriezos and Wise, 1976;
McFarland and Ettenberg, 1995;
Wise and Raptis, 1986;
Wise et al., 1978a).
Although dopamine receptor activation is not a necessary condition for the motivation induced by reward-predictive environmental stimuli, activation of dopamine receptors can augment the effectiveness of such cues. For example, rewarding brain stimulation (
Gallistel, 1969) or dopamine agonists such as amphetamine and cocaine (
Pickens and Harris, 1968) are routinely used to “prime” or “reinstate” responding in unresponsive animals that have access to these rewards. Indeed, dopamine itself (
Cornish and Kalivas, 2000) or the dopamine agonist bromocriptine (
Wise et al., 1990) can reinstate responding in animals that have ceased lever-pressing because the behavior is no longer rewarded. Similarly, amphetamine injection into nucleus accumbens can increase the lever-pressing for sucrose that is triggered by cues that have been associated with sucrose outside the context of the instrumental task (
Wyvell and Berridge, 2000). Thus while minimal levels of dopamine seem necessary for performance capability (
Levitt and Teitelbaum, 1975;
Stricker and Zigmond, 1985;
Ungerstedt, 1971;
Robinson et al., 2005) phasic dopamine release does not seem critical for cue-induced motivation in well-trained animals. Nonetheless, activation of dopamine receptors through activation of brain reward circuitry can augment motivational arousal of remembered response habits.