• We are sorry, but NCBI web applications do not support your browser and may not function properly. More information
Logo of nihpaAbout Author manuscriptsSubmit a manuscriptNIH Public Access; Author Manuscript; Accepted for publication in peer reviewed journal;
Brain Struct Funct. Author manuscript; available in PMC Nov 1, 2008.
Published in final edited form as:
PMCID: PMC2556127
NIHMSID: NIHMS66758

The structural basis for mapping behavior onto the striatum and its subdivisions

Abstract

The striatum can be divided into dorsal (caudate-putamen) and ventral parts. In the ventral division, the nucleus accumbens, which subserves adaptive and goal-directed behaviors, is further subdivided into shell and core. Accumbal neurons show different types of experience-dependent plasticity: those in the core seem to discriminate the motivational value of conditioned stimuli, features that rely on the integration of information and enhanced synaptic plasticity at the many spines on these cells, whereas shell neurons seem to be involved with the release of predetermined behavior patterns in relation to unconditioned stimuli, and the behavioral consequences of repeated administration of addictive drugs. In the core, the principal neurons are medium sized and densely spiny, but in the medial shell, these same neurons are much smaller and their dendrites, significantly less spiny, suggesting that morphological differences could mediate unique neuroadaptations associated with each region. This review is focused on evaluating the structural differences in nucleus accumbens core and shell neurons and discusses how such different morphologies could underlie distinguishable behavioral processes.

Keywords: dopamine, nucleus accumbens, glutamate receptors, dopamine, shell, core

Introduction

In his long and productive research career, Lennart Heimer was particularly focused on the organization of the basal forebrain, the unravelling of which he saw as being essential for our understanding of drive and motivation, and of associated psychiatric disorders. In considering the neural substrates that initiate and maintain motivated behavior, we, like Lennart Heimer and his associates (Heimer et al. 1993), naturally focus on the nucleus accumbens (Acb) of the ventral striatum, the functional interface between motivation and movement (Mogenson et al. 1980; Mogenson and Yang 1991). Heimer and Wilson (Heimer and Wilson 1975) were the first to recognize the significance of the parallel input-output relationships of the dorsal and ventral parts of the striatum. They realized that while the dorsal striatum was the primary target of sensory and motor cortices, the ventral striatum received the bulk of its cortical innervation from allocortical regions, such as the amygdala and hippocampus, regions that process affect-related information, and from neocortical areas, such as the prefrontal cortex, that are associated with the executive modulation of emotional expression (Kelley et al. 1982a; Kelley and Domesick 1982b; McGeorge and Faull 1989; Heimer et al. 1991b; Heimer and Van Hoesen 2006). The cortex provides the major glutamatergic innervation and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) and substantia nigra (SN), the dopamine supply to the Acb (Beckstead et al. 1979; Kelley et al. 1982a; Kelley and Domesick 1982b; Brog et al. 1993). Dopamine from the mesolimbic system (VTA), which innervates large parts of the Acb, is of particular importance for reward-related stimuli (Scheel-Krüger and Willner 1991). Neural processing in the Acb is also critically dependent upon the relationships with the basolateral amygdala, hippocampus, and prefrontal cortex, the ‘affect’-related cortical connections (Alheid and Heimer 1988).

The Acb was first linked to motivational processes early in the last century when Herrick (Herrick 1926) suggested that it was involved in locomotion and feeding. Subsequently, Mogenson and Wu (Mogenson and Wu 1982) reported that pharmacological manipulations of dopamine in the Acb could inhibit or enhance feeding and drinking. Mogenson and colleagues then went on to propose the influential idea that the ventral striatum could be a ‘limbic-motor interface’ where processing related to motivation and emotion gains access to the motor system (Mogenson et al. 1980). Heimer and colleagues carried the concept further in a series of seminal works defining and refining the descriptions of basal forebrain systems, including the Acb (Alheid and Heimer 1988; Heimer et al. 1991b; Heimer and Alheid 1991c; Heimer et al. 1993; Alheid and Heimer 1996; Heimer et al. 1997).

In focusing specifically on the Acb, there is now considerable evidence that dopamine is a critical substrate for goal-directed behaviors and the incentive salience associated with reward. However, conditioned behavior also requires glutamate, and drug-induced changes in glutamate transmission in the Acb seemingly produce the long-term plasticity that underlies addiction (Wolf 1998; Kelley et al. 2003; Wolf et al. 2004). Nevertheless, considerable debate continues regarding the precise behavioral process or set of processes governed by the Acb, in part, because the ventral striatum itself can be further subdivided into functionally discrete parts.

In 1985, working with Lennart Heimer, Zaborszky and colleagues (Zaborszky et al. 1985) made the important observation that the Acb could be divided morphologically into two regions, the shell and core. Others have recognized these subdivisions subsequently using hodological, morphological, and histochemical criteria, see e.g. (Alheid and Heimer 1988; Meredith et al. 1989; Voorn et al. 1989; Groenewegen et al. 1991; Heimer and Alheid 1991c; Meredith et al. 1992; Brog et al. 1993). The anatomical delineation has also been matched by behavioral, electrophysiological, and neurochemical studies that have demonstrated distinctive Acb core and shell associations with specific motivated behaviors, e.g. (Chang et al. 1994; Betancur et al. 1997; Kelley and Swanson 1997; Stratford and Kelley 1997; Barrot et al. 2002).

It might be thought that the various behaviors could be consequences of different information being provided to core and shell neurons, and there is some evidence for this view. For example, the ventral hippocampus projects primarily to the shell whereas more dorsal parts of the subiculum innervate the core (Groenewegen et al. 1991). The amygdala supplies the shell strongly, but innervate only small compartments (the patches or striosomes) in the core (Ragsdale and Graybiel 1988; Wright et al. 1996). There are also differences in the dopaminergic innervation of the Acb, since the inputs to the shell arise almost exclusively from the VTA whereas those to the core are mixed, coming from the SN as well (Brog et al. 1993). Moreover, projections from different sources may well end up on the same neurons, as has recently been demonstrated for ventral subicular and amygdalar inputs that converge on the same principal neurons in the shell (French and Totterdell 2003).

Although divergent connectivity provides a framework for many of the shell-core functional differences, we shall argue here that it is the heterogeneity in the structure of Acb neurons themselves that confers distinctive information-processing capabilities to these regions. We expect the differential ability of these neurons to integrate or adapt to changes in their inputs and to undergo the plastic changes that underlie motivational behavior (Meredith and Totterdell 1999b) to account for, at least in part, the alignment of certain functional responses to a particular region. We evaluate here some of the evidence for functional heterogeneity in the ventral striatal territories and review how this correlates with various behaviors.

Mapping behavior onto the shell and core

Kelley and colleagues were among the first to report distinguishable behavioral effects of selective pharmacological manipulation of the shell versus core (Maldonado-Irizarry and Kelley 1994). They demonstrated that infusions of the NMDA-receptor antagonist, AP-5 into the “central accumbens” (placements were in the Acb core and partially in the lateral shell, immediately lateral to the anterior commissure) produced decrements in locomotor activity, rearing, and novel object exploration that were much more pronounced than similar infusions into the “medial accumbens” (placements were in the medial shell). A conceptually similar result was reported two months later by Pulvirenti et al. (Pulvirenti et al. 1994), who showed that hyperactivity induced by systemic cocaine treatment was attenuated by intra-Acb infusions of AP-5 into the core but not the medial shell.

These initial studies suggested that glutamate transmission in the Acb core plays a more important role than in the shell in modulating goal-directed exploratory activity. This would mean a stronger involvement of the core neurons in connecting motor output with motivationally salient environmental contexts or stimuli. This idea has been further refined in numerous subsequent studies. To cite just a few: the development and expression of Pavlovian conditioned approach responses to a stimulus predicting food (Parkinson et al. 2000), the ability of drug-associated Pavlovian stimuli to support operant lever-pressing (Ito et al. 2004), and the motivational consequences of outcome devaluation, which tests an animal's ability to respond appropriately to a recent change in the motivational significance of a stimulus (Corbit et al. 2001), are all impaired by lesions of the Acb core, but not those of the medial shell (Parkinson et al. 1999; Di Ciano et al. 2001; Kelley 2004). In addition, inactivation of the Acb core, but not the medial shell, impairs performance in a set-shifting task (Floresco et al. 2006). Electrophysiological studies have found that a greater proportion of units recorded in the Acb core, relative to those in the medial shell, display excitatory responses when an animal is orienting to a novel environment or about to perform a motor response (lever-press) to receive drug reinforcement (Wood and Rebec 2004; Hollander and Carelli 2005). Moreover, studies using fast-scan cyclic voltammetry have demonstrated pre-lever press increases in dopamine release in the Acb core but not the medial shell (Phillips et al. 2003c). Based in part on these findings, a consensus is emerging that the Acb core plays a relatively more prominent role than the shell in selecting and executing motor responses to complex, changing contexts, or to stimuli whose motivational significance has been recently updated or modified by previous conditioning, e.g. see (Cardinal et al. 2002). Thus, neurons in the core appear to integrate the motivational value of reward-related stimuli and context-dependent associations, and translate these into motor actions.

In contrast, the Acb shell, and here we mean the medial sector, may be more selectively involved in governing unconditioned responses, including the release of predetermined motor patterns, in association with unconditional stimuli. For example, stronger spontaneous locomotor and investigatory responses are elicited by dopamine or D1 receptor agonist infusions into the medial shell compared to those in the core (Swanson et al. 1997; Baldo et al. 2002; Hernandez et al. 2005). Although lesions of the medial shell do not affect the ability of a Pavlovian conditional stimulus to support instrumental responding (conditioned reinforcement, CR), these lesions strongly attenuate the ability of amphetamine to enhance CR responding (Parkinson et al. 1999), and see (Phillips et al. 2003a), and weaken the psychostimulant actions of cocaine (Ito et al. 2004). Indeed, the unconditioned dopamine response to morphine and cocaine is significantly greater in the shell compared to that in the core (Pontieri et al. 1995).

The neural network that mediates the stimulant drug effects appears to lie in the shell, for the magnitude of the dopamine response with psychoactive drugs is dependent upon an intact shell (Everitt et al. 1999). Even stronger evidence of the somewhat ‘fixed’ nature of the Acb shell-mediated behavioral responses comes from the work of Kelley and colleagues on the Acb's mediation of feeding. In several studies, this group showed that pharmacological inactivation of the medial shell output, whether by AMPA-type glutamate receptor blockade, or by stimulation of GABA receptors, produces a voracious feeding response in ad libitum-fed animals (Kelley and Swanson 1997; Stratford and Kelley 1997). These effects are not seen with similar microinfusions into the Acb core, lateral shell, or other parts of the striatum (Kelley and Swanson 1997; Basso and Kelley 1999). The feeding response is very stereotyped, and is not taste- or macronutrient specific, as it is with opioid receptor stimulation in the core (Zhang et al. 1998; Basso and Kelley 1999). Perhaps more germane to this discussion, shell-mediated hyperphagia does not translate into enhanced operant responding for food (Zhang et al. 2003). Moreover, hyperphagia-inducing shell manipulations during operant training enhance the acquisition of responding for food reward (Hanlon et al. 2004; Baldo et al. 2005). Thus, the feeding response elicited from the shell appears to resemble the release of fixed-action feeding patterns, in a manner reminiscent of stimulus-driven feeding elicited from the lateral hypothalamus (Kelley et al. 2005b; Baldo and Kelley 2007). In further agreement, opioid enhancement of unconditional palatable taste reactions are selectively enhanced by stimulation of the same medial shell region that supports GABA-mediated hyperphagia (Pecina and Berridge 2005; Baldo and Kelley 2007).

It is straightforward to invoke an argument based on hodology for these differences in the behavioral responses being mediated by the Acb core vs. medial shell. The topographic organization of basolateral amygdala-Acb projections (Kelley et al. 1982a; Wright et al. 1996) could perhaps account for the core/shell differences in mediating Pavlovian processes, and the unique Acb shell-lateral hypothalamus projection (Heimer et al. 1991a) in shell-mediated feeding responses. Nevertheless, intrinsic differences in the information-processing capabilities of the Acb neurons must be important contributors to the observed behavioral differences.

Two potential mechanisms that come to mind are the ability to integrate information arriving from convergent neural inputs, and the capacity to consolidate or store information through mechanisms of cellular plasticity. The involvement of these two processes, and in particular the latter, in the Acb control of behavioral processes is controversial. Yet, there is compelling evidence from behavioral studies to suggest that instrumental learning-related plasticity occurs in the Acb, and that neuronal plasticity is differentially expressed in the Acb core vs. medial shell. For example, intra-Acb core NMDA receptor blockade produces a stronger disruption of spatial learning and performance in a food-foraging holeboard task (Maldonado-Irizarry et al. 1995) and in a radial arm maze (Smith-Roe et al. 1999) compared to identical manipulations in the medial shell. One of us (Kelley et al. 1997) has shown a striking dissociation between the effects of NMDA receptor blockade in the core compared to the shell on the acquisition of a food-reinforced operant lever-press response. Intra-Acb core infusions of AP-5 during training strongly inhibited acquisition, but had no effect on the response of rats that had already learned the response. Infusions into the shell had no effect on acquisition or performance. Finally, infusions of the protein synthesis inhibitor, anisomycin (a drug known to disrupt the consolidation of fear memories in the amygdala), into the Acb core, but not the medial shell, disrupted the acquisition of operant lever-pressing for food reinforcement (Hernandez et al. 2002). In this experiment, the drug was infused immediately after the training sessions, ruling out non-specific performance effects and suggesting a mechanism of post-trial disruption of memory consolidation. A subsequent study showed that pre-trial blockade of AMPA, NMDA, or dopamine D1 receptors in the Acb core disrupted instrumental learning, but post-trial infusions had no effect (Hernandez et al. 2005), implicating both transmitter systems in the learning. It is therefore important to consider whether structural and synaptic patterning of innervation in the Acb core and shell could account for putative differences in information integration and plasticity. The following section reviews the evidence for compelling differences between the core and shell in morphology and synaptic arrangements of dopamine and glutamate.

The structural basis for motivation and reward in the shell and core

Ramón y Cajal's (Ramón y Cajal 1911) description of striatal neurons, being medium in size and densely spiny implies a homogeneity throughout the region for which in fact there is scant evidence as applied to the Acb. In the Acb, as in the dorsal striatum, principal neurons use GABA as their primary neurotransmitter, contain various peptides and comprise 90−95 percent of the total population (Meredith and Totterdell 1999b). However, they differ noticeably in their dendritic organization and spine densities, as can readily be seen in figure 1 (Meredith et al. 1992).

Figure 1
Digitized reconstructions of principal neurons located in the (A) core – small to medium size densely spiny neuron, (B) lateral shell of nucleus accumbens – small to medium size densely spiny neuron, (C) medial shell of nucleus accumbens ...

In the dorsal striatum, the neurons are indeed medium-sized (12−18μm in cross-sectional diameter), and their dendrites are densely covered with spines, except for the most proximal branches (Wilson et al. 1983; Bolam 1984; Ingham 1989). But in the ventral striatum, the morphology of principal cells differs significantly between regions (figs. 1--22 and table 1). Thus, in the Acb core and lateral shell, the cell bodies are smaller than those located in the dorsal striatum, but the spine density is similar (Meredith et al. 1992). The principal neurons in the medial shell are even smaller and have fewer dendritic arbors and 20% fewer spines than do neurons in the core, lateral shell or dorsal striatum (figs. 1--2).2). Accordingly, medial shell principal neurons have as much as 80% less surface available for synaptic contact than do neurons in other dorsal or ventral striatal regions (Meredith et al. 1992). There are differences between shell and core neurons include their connections, as has been reviewed by others (Voorn et al. 2004), synaptic arrangement and receptor distribution.

Figure 2
Golgi-impregnated neurons in the (A) dorsal striatum, (B) core and (C) medial shell of the Acb. Note the differences in spine density and dendrite orientation of principal neurons in these regions
Table 1
Structural, synaptic and receptor framework of the Acb shell and core

One of the most interesting features of striatal spiny neurons is the way synapses are arranged on their spines. Each spine has an asymmetrical input at its the head (Kemp and Powell 1971) that is presumably glutamatergic, and a dopaminergic supply to its base (Bolam 1984; Freund et al. 1984), a grouping, often referred to as a ‘triad’, that could enable the dopaminergic synapse to influence the efficacy of the glutamatergic signal (reviewed in (Dani and Zhou 2004). However, this synaptic arrangement is not found throughout the Acb. Indeed, in the core, only about half of the dopaminergic inputs contact the necks of spines, and in the medial shell, only a third of these terminals even synapse on spines (Zahm 1992). In fact, the more medial and caudal a neuron's location in the Acb, the more dopaminergic contacts are found on its dendrites (Zahm 1992). The origin and density of the synapses also differ between regions. Dopaminergic neurons in the SN pars compacta (dorsal tier), along with some neurons in the retrorubral fields, project to patches in the Acb (Gerfen 1987a), whereas dopaminergic neurons in the VTA terminate predominantly ventromedially in the Acb shell and in medial parts of the core (Brog et al. 1993). The densest dopaminergic innervation to the Acb is in the medial shell (Voorn et al. 1986), where the terminals arise from VTA axons and synapse primarily on the dendrites of principal neurons (Zahm 1992), and often on proximal dendrites (unpublished data, Meredith, 2001).

The D1 receptor appears to be differentially distributed between the medial shell and core. Dumartin and colleagues (Dumartin et al. 2007) have identified presynaptic D1 receptors at one-quarter of all asymmetrical synapses in both shell and core but a significantly greater proportion in the shell are found on dendrites when compared to the core (Hara and Pickel 2005). Significantly more of the D1 receptors co-localize with NDMA receptors on dendrites in the medial shell when compared to the core (Hara and Pickel 2005) and where this co-localization occurs, the diameter of the target dendrites is greater in the shell than in the core, suggesting that more proximal dendrites in the shell have both D1 and NMDA receptors (Hara and Pickel 2005). This is not surprising, for we have shown that dopaminergic synapses more often contact proximal dendrites in the shell than the core (unpublished results, Meredith 2001). In the shell, NMDA receptors are also found presynaptically on dopaminergic endings (Gracy and Pickel 1996), where they could influence the release of dopamine, an arrangement that might be responsible for the preferential release of dopamine in the shell observed during the acquisition of Pavlovian associations (Phillips et al. 2003b).

The distribution of AMPA receptors has been studied in the dorsal striatum. Approximately 60% of the two subunits, GluR2 and GluR3, are concentrated at asymmetrical synapses on spines (Bernard et al. 1997) and these colocalize postsynaptically with the NR1 subunit of the NMDA receptor at greater than 80% of axospinous synapses (Bernard and Bolam 1998). The distribution of AMPA receptors has yet to be fully explored in the Acb, but they are present on virtually all principal neurons and overlap the distribution of D1 and D2 receptors on approximately 80% of these cells (Lu and Wolf 1999). While presumably located at excitatory synapses on spines and dendrites, it is not yet known whether these AMPA receptors are differentially distributed between shell and core.

Alterations in glutamatergic activity can impact synaptic efficacy and give rise to changes in synaptic shape. We know that the competitive blockade of the NMDA receptor with AP-5 produces profound learning deficits in an instrumental learning task but only during its acquisition (Maldonado-Irizarry and Kelley 1994; Kelley et al. 1997). As this motor learning is fully dependent upon neurons in the Acb core, which are densely endowed with spines, each of which has a glutamatergic synapse, NMDA receptor-mediated plasticity could form the basis for the learning that has been so commonly observed in this part of the Acb. A spine forms a biochemical compartment, with NMDA receptors that are permeable to calcium ions, and has a thin neck where the movement of calcium into the dendrite could be gated (Koch and Zador 1993). Additional data implicate D1-NMDA interactions in the control of learning-related plasticity (Wolf et al. 2003). For example, DA D1 receptor antagonists that block instrumental learning (Hernandez et al. 2005), may do so through their actions on the synaptic ‘triads’ of core neurons.

The medial shell appears to play a less prominent role in the acquisition of new operant responding, although it does exhibit different types of experience-dependent plasticity, such as the long-lasting depression of excitatory synaptic transmission elicited by chronic cocaine administration (Thomas and Everitt 2001). As we have seen, shell neurons have many fewer spines than do core neurons, their afferent dopaminergic inputs are made onto proximal dendrites rather than on spines, and although D1 and NMDA receptors co-localize, they do so more often on dendrites, or presynaptically on spines (Hara and Pickel 2005; Dumartin et al. 2007). Thus, shell principal neurons seem less prepared for typical NMDA-mediated synaptic plasticity than are core neurons and, accordingly, shell cells may require synaptic or dendritic growth to support any behavioral change.

Dendritic spines are the favored sites for plastic changes in the striatum. Over three decades ago, Rall (Rall 1974) through modeling studies, and later Wilson and colleagues (Wilson et al. 1983) using high voltage electron microscopy found that synaptic efficacy can be rapidly and persistently altered if spine number or shape is modified. Several studies that have manipulated synapse form have revealed differences between shell and core neurons. For example, the number of spines on core but not on medial shell neurons decreases, when the dopaminergic innervation is removed (Meredith 1995). Shell neurons, however, increase dendritic length, spine density and change spine shape after chronic administration of cocaine or amphetamine (Robinson and Kolb 1999). Considerable synaptic remodeling of shell neurons occurs, including an increase in spine numbers follows long-term administration of haloperidol, but only when rats develop an abnormal (dyskinetic) motor response (Meredith et al. 2000). Thus, principal neurons in both the shell and core seem able to adapt structurally to prolonged changes in their inputs and such neuroadaptation could support long-lasting behavioral change.

Conclusions and future directions

We have summarized the evidence that suggests that there may be a structural basis for the distinguishable behaviors mediated by Acb core and shell, particularly with regard to information-processing and storage as mediated by convergent dopaminergic and glutamatergic inputs onto intrinsic striatal neurons. We conclude that the plasticity that accompanies core-mediated learning is rapid and, therefore, could require enhanced synaptic efficacy at numerous spine synapses, presumably through a mechanism such as long-term potentiation. In contrast, the behavioral responses mediated by the medial shell may be more fixed, and would require robust changes at dendrites rather than spine-based synaptic modification.

Other mechanisms, however, are likely to be involved. There are, for example, numerous neuroactive substances in the Acb, other than dopamine and glutamate, whose role in cellular plasticity is only beginning to be understood, and whose distribution and functional effects differ between shell and core. To outline just a few examples, it has been shown that methionineenkephalin depresses IPSCs more strongly in the shell than in the core, and that Acb shell neurons lack the adenosine-mediated inhibition of EPSCs observed in the core (Brundege and Williams 2002). There is a noradrenergic projection to the striatum that is provided mainly by the A2 cell group in the nucleus of the solitary tract that innervates the posterior medial shell, but avoids the core and dorsal striatum (Delfs et al. 1998). In addition, there are several recently discovered hypothalamic peptides, such as the feeding-and arousal-related peptides, orexin/hypocretin, and the melanin-concentrating hormone (Bittencourt et al. 1992; Peyron et al. 1998; Baldo et al. 2003), that innervate the Acb shell far more densely than the core. It is interesting to note that these projections arise from neurons that are localized entirely within the lateral hypothalamic area, a region that receives a major projection from the Acb shell (Heimer et al. 1991a). Finally, the ventral striatum contains abundant binding sites for amylin, a member of the CGRP peptide family that is co-released with insulin in connection with feeding and energy balance-related signals; these binding sites are concentrated most heavily in the Acb shell and fundus striati (Sexton et al. 1994; van Rossum et al. 1994). Hence, there is a particularly close relationship between the Acb shell and systems that convey arousal-related autonomic, visceral, and peripheral energy balance-related information, and this association has led the shell being referred to as the “viscero-endocrine striatum” (Kelley 1999). Although the roles of these modulators in the information-integration and plasticity functions of the Acb neurons have yet to be determined (indeed, the ultrastructural arrangements of their synaptic contacts are still largely unknown), we can speculate that if they participate in cellular plasticity, they are likely do so in the context of automatic, reflexive, or highly over-learned behavioral processes (feeding, unconditioned patterns of investigatory behavior, etc).

This review has provided evidence that the core with medium sized densely spiny neurons relates to new instrumental learning and behavioral responses to conditioned stimuli, and the shell with smaller, sparsely spiny cells mediates predetermined behavior patterns in relation to unconditioned stimuli. It remains to be seen whether new findings will support these designations and realize the potential that swtructure can bring to behavioral funding.

Acknowledgments

This work was partly supported by USPHS grants from NIH: DA 016662 (GEM), DA 09311 (AEK), MH 74723 (BAB), and DA 016465 (MA).

References

  • Alheid GF, Heimer L. New perspectives in basal forebrain organization of special relevance for neuropsychiatric disorders: the striatopallidal, amygdaloid, and corticopetal components of substantia innominata. Neuroscience. 1988;27:1–39. [PubMed]
  • Alheid GF, Heimer L. Theories of basal forebrain organization and the ”emotional motor system”. Prog Brain Res. 1996;107:461–484. [PubMed]
  • Baldo BA, Alsene KM, Negron A, Kelley AE. Hyperphagia induced by GABAA receptor-mediated inhibition of the nucleus accumbens shell: dependence on intact neural output from the central amygdaloid region. Behav Neurosci. 2005;119:1195–1206. [PubMed]
  • Baldo BA, Daniel RA, Berridge CW, Kelley AE. Overlapping distributions of orexin/hypocretin- and dopamine-beta-hydroxylase immunoreactive fibers in rat brain regions mediating arousal, motivation, and stress. J Comp Neurol. 2003;464:220–237. [PubMed]
  • Baldo BA, Kelley AE. Discrete neurochemical coding of distinguishable motivational processes: insights from nucleus accumbens control of feeding. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2007;191:439–459. [PubMed]
  • Baldo BA, Sadeghian K, Basso AM, Kelley AE. Effects of selective dopamine D1 or D2 receptor blockade within nucleus accumbens subregions on ingestive behavior and associated motor activity. Behav Brain Res. 2002;137:165–177. [PubMed]
  • Barrot M, Olivier JD, Perrotti LI, DiLeone RJ, Berton O, Eisch AJ, Impey S, Storm DR, Neve RL, Yin JC, Zachariou V, Nestler EJ. CREB activity in the nucleus accumbens shell controls gating of behavioral responses to emotional stimuli. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2002;99:11435–11440. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Basso AM, Kelley AE. Feeding induced by GABA(A) receptor stimulation within the nucleus accumbens shell: regional mapping and characterization of macronutrient and taste preference. Behav Neurosci. 1999;113:324–336. [PubMed]
  • Beckstead RM, Domesick VB, Nauta WJ. Efferent connections of the substantia nigra and ventral tegmental area in the rat. Brain Res. 1979;175:191–217. [PubMed]
  • Bernard V, Bolam JP. Subcellular and subsynaptic distribution of the NR1 subunit of the NMDA receptor in the neostriatum and globus pallidus of the rat: co-localization at synapses with the GluR2/3 subunit of the AMPA receptor. Eur J Neurosci. 1998;10:3721–3736. [PubMed]
  • Bernard V, Somogyi P, Bolam JP. Cellular, subcellular, and subsynaptic distribution of AMPA-type glutamate receptor subunits in the neostriatum of the rat. J Neurosci. 1997;17:819–833. [PubMed]
  • Betancur C, Rostene W, Berod A. Chronic cocaine increases neurotensin gene expression in the shell of the nucleus accumbens and in discrete regions of the striatum. Brain Res Mol Brain Res. 1997;44:334–340. [PubMed]
  • Bittencourt JC, Presse F, Arias C, Peto C, Vaughan J, Nahon JL, Vale W, Sawchenko PE. The melanin-concentrating hormone system of the rat brain: an immuno- and hybridization histochemical characterization. J Comp Neurol. 1992;319:218–245. [PubMed]
  • Bolam JP. Synapses of identified neurons in the neostriatum. Ciba Found Symp. 1984;107:30–47. [PubMed]
  • Brog JS, Salyapongse A, Deutch AY, Zahm DS. The patterns of afferent innervation of the core and shell in the ”accumbens” part of the rat ventral striatum: immunohistochemical detection of retrogradely transported fluoro-gold. J Comp Neurol. 1993;338:255–278. [PubMed]
  • Brundege JM, Williams JT. Differential modulation of nucleus accumbens synapses. J Neurophysiol. 2002;88:142–151. [PubMed]
  • Cardinal RN, Parkinson JA, Hall J, Everitt BJ. Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2002;26:321–352. [PubMed]
  • Chang JY, Sawyer SF, Lee RS, Woodward DJ. Electrophysiological and pharmacological evidence for the role of the nucleus accumbens in cocaine self-administration in freely moving rats. J Neurosci. 1994;14:1224–1244. [PubMed]
  • Corbit LH, Muir JL, Balleine BW. The role of the nucleus accumbens in instrumental conditioning: Evidence of a functional dissociation between accumbens core and shell. J Neurosci. 2001;21:3251–3260. [PubMed]
  • Dani JA, Zhou FM. Selective dopamine filter of glutamate striatal afferents. Neuron. 2004;42:522–524. [PubMed]
  • Delfs JM, Zhu Y, Druhan JP, Aston-Jones GS. Origin of noradrenergic afferents to the shell subregion of the nucleus accumbens: anterograde and retrograde tract-tracing studies in the rat. Brain Res. 1998;806:127–140. [PubMed]
  • Di Ciano P, Cardinal RN, Cowell RA, Little SJ, Everitt BJ. Differential involvement of NMDA, AMPA/kainate, and dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens core in the acquisition and performance of pavlovian approach behavior. J Neurosci. 2001;21:9471–9477. [PubMed]
  • Dumartin B, Doudnikoff E, Gonon F, Bloch B. Differences in ultrastructural localization of dopaminergic D1 receptors between dorsal striatum and nucleus accumbens in the rat. Neurosci Lett. 2007;419:273–277. [PubMed]
  • Everitt BJ, Parkinson JA, Olmstead MC, Arroyo M, Robledo P, Robbins TW. Associative processes in addiction and reward. The role of amygdala-ventral striatal subsystems. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999;877:412–438. [PubMed]
  • Floresco SB, Ghods-Sharifi S, Vexelman C, Magyar O. Dissociable roles for the nucleus accumbens core and shell in regulating set shifting. J Neurosci. 2006;26:2449–2457. [PubMed]
  • French SJ, Totterdell S. Individual nucleus accumbens-projection neurons receive both basolateral amygdala and ventral subicular afferents in rats. Neuroscience. 2003;119:19–31. [PubMed]
  • Freund TF, Powell JF, Smith AD. Tyrosine hydroxylase-immunoreactive boutons in synaptic contact with identified striatonigral neurons, with particular reference to dendritic spines. Neuroscience. 1984;13:1189–1215. [PubMed]
  • Gerfen CR, Herkenham M, Thibault J. The neostriatal mosaic: II. Patch- and matrix-directed meso striatal dopaminergic and non-dopaminergic systems. J Neurosci. 1987a;7:3915–3934. [PubMed]
  • Gracy KN, Pickel VM. Ultrastructural immunocytochemical localization of the N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor and tyrosine hydroxylase in the shell of the rat nucleus accumbens. Brain Res. 1996;739:169–181. [PubMed]
  • Groenewegen HJ, Berendse HW, Meredith GE, Haber SN, Voorn P, Wolters JG, Lohman AHM. Functional anatomy of the ventral, limbic system-innervated striatum. In: Willner P, Scheel-Krüger J, editors. The Mesolimbic Dopamine System: From Motivation to Action. John Wiley & Sons; Chichester: 1991. pp. 19–59.
  • Hanlon EC, Baldo BA, Sadeghian K, Kelley AE. Increases in food intake or food-seeking behavior induced by GABAergic, opioid, or dopaminergic stimulation of the nucleus accumbens: is it hunger? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 2004;172:241–247. [PubMed]
  • Hara Y, Pickel VM. Overlapping intracellular and differential synaptic distributions of dopamine D1 and glutamate N-methyl-D-aspartate receptors in rat nucleus accumbens. J Comp Neurol. 2005;492:442–455. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Heimer L, Alheid GF. Piecing together the puzzle of basal forebrain anatomy. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1991c;295:1–42. [PubMed]
  • Heimer L, Alheid GF, de Olmos JS, Groenewegen HJ, Haber SN, Harlan RE, Zahm DS. The accumbens: beyond the core-shell dichotomy. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1997;9:354–381. [PubMed]
  • Heimer L, Alheid GF, Zahm DS. Basal forebrain organization: an anatomical framework for motor aspects of drive and motivation. In: Kalivas PW, Barnes CD, editors. Limbic Motor Circuits and Neuropsychiatry. CRC Press; Boca Raton, FL: 1993.
  • Heimer L, de Olmos J, Alheid GF, Zaborszky L. ”Perestroika” in the basal forebrain: opening the border between neurology and psychiatry. Prog Brain Res. 1991b;87:109–165. [PubMed]
  • Heimer L, Van Hoesen GW. The limbic lobe and its output channels: implications for emotional functions and adaptive behavior. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2006;30:126–147. [PubMed]
  • Heimer L, Wilson RD. The subcortical projections of the allocortex: similarities in the neural associations of the hippocampus, the piriform cortex, and the neocortex. In: Santinni M, editor. Golgi Centennial Symposium. Raven Press; New York: 1975. pp. 177–193.
  • Heimer L, Zahm DS, Churchill L, Kalivas PW, Wohltmann C. Specificity in the projection patterns of accumbal core and shell in the rat. Neuroscience. 1991a;41:89–125. [PubMed]
  • Hernandez PJ, Andrzejewski ME, Sadeghian K, Panksepp JB, Kelley AE. AMPA/kainate, NMDA, and dopamine D1 receptor function in the nucleus accumbens core: a context-limited role in the encoding and consolidation of instrumental memory. Learn Mem. 2005;12:285–295. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Hernandez PJ, Sadeghian K, Kelley AE. Early consolidation of instrumental learning requires protein synthesis in the nucleus accumbens. Nat Neurosci. 2002;5:1327–1331. [PubMed]
  • Herrick CJ. Brains of Rats and Men. University of Chicago Press; Chicago: 1926. Neurological Foundations of Animal Behavior.
  • Hollander JA, Carelli RM. Abstinence from cocaine self-administration heightens neural encoding of goal-directed behaviors in the accumbens. Neuropsychopharmacology. 2005;30:1464–1474. [PubMed]
  • Ingham CA, Hood SH, Arbuthnott GW. Spine density on neostriatal neurons changes with 6-hydroxydopamine lesions with age. Brain Res. 1989;503:334–338. [PubMed]
  • Ito R, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. Differential control over cocaine-seeking behavior by nucleus accumbens core and shell. Nat Neurosci. 2004;7:389–397. [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE. Neural integrative activities of nucleus accumbens subregions in relation to learning and motivation. Psychobiology. 1999;27:198–213.
  • Kelley AE. Ventral striatal control of appetitive motivation: role in ingestive behavior and reward-related learning. Neurosci Biobehav Rev. 2004;27:765–776. [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE, Andrzejewski ME, Baldwin AE, Hernandez PJ, Pratt WE. Glutamate-mediated plasticity in corticostriatal networks: role in adaptive motor learning. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;1003:159–168. [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE, Baldo BA, Pratt WE, Will MJ. Corticostriatal-hypothalamic circuitry and food motivation: integration of energy, action and reward. Physiol Behav. 2005b;86:773–795. [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE, Domesick VB. The distribution of the projection from the hippocampal formation to the nucleus accumbens in the rat: an anterograde- and retrograde-horseradish peroxidase study. Neuroscience. 1982b;7:2321–2335. [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE, Domesick VB, Nauta WJ. The amygdalostriatal projection in the rat--an anatomical study by anterograde and retrograde tracing methods. Neuroscience. 1982a;7:615–630. [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE, Smith-Roe SL, Holahan MR. Response-reinforcement learning is dependent on N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor activation in the nucleus accumbens core. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1997;94:12174–12179. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Kelley AE, Swanson CJ. Feeding induced by blockade of AMPA and kainate receptors within the ventral striatum: a microinfusion mapping study. Behav Brain Res. 1997;89:107–113. [PubMed]
  • Kemp JM, Powell TP. The termination of fibres from the cerebral cortex and thalamus upon dendritic spines in the caudate nucleus: a study with the Golgi method. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B Biol Sci. 1971;262:429–439. [PubMed]
  • Koch C, Zador A. The function of dendritic spines: devices subserving biochemical rather than electrical compartmentalization. J Neurosci. 1993;13:413–422. [PubMed]
  • Lu W, Wolf ME. Repeated amphetamine administration alters AMPA receptor subunit expression in rat nucleus accumbens and medial prefrontal cortex. Synapse. 1999;32:119–131. [PubMed]
  • Maldonado-Irizarry CS, Kelley AE. Differential behavioral effects following microinjection of an NMDA antagonist into nucleus accumbens subregions. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1994;116:65–72. [PubMed]
  • Maldonado-Irizarry CS, Swanson CJ, Kelley AE. Glutamate receptors in the nucleus accumbens shell control feeding behavior via the lateral hypothalamus. J Neurosci. 1995;15:6779–6788. [PubMed]
  • McGeorge AJ, Faull RL. The organization of the projection from the cerebral cortex to the striatum in the rat. Neuroscience. 1989;29:503–537. [PubMed]
  • Meredith GE. The synaptic framework for chemical signaling in nucleus accumbens. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 1999a;877:140–156. [PubMed]
  • Meredith GE, Agolia R, Arts MP, Groenewegen HJ, Zahm DS. Morphological differences between projection neurons of the core and shell in the nucleus accumbens of the rat. Neuroscience. 1992;50:149–162. [PubMed]
  • Meredith GE, Blank B, Groenewegen HJ. The distribution and compartmental organization of the cholinergic neurons in nucleus accumbens of the rat. Neuroscience. 1989;31:327–345. [PubMed]
  • Meredith GE, De Souza IE, Hyde TM, Tipper G, Wong ML, Egan MF. Persistent alterations in dendrites, spines, and dynorphinergic synapses in the nucleus accumbens shell of rats with neuroleptic-induced dyskinesias. J Neurosci. 2000;20:7798–7806. [PubMed]
  • Meredith GE, Totterdell S. Microcircuits in nucleus accumbens’ shell and core involved in cognition and reward. Psychobiology. 1999b;27:165–186.
  • Meredith GE, Ypma P, Zahm DS. Effects of dopamine depletion on the morphology of medium spiny neurons in the shell and core of the rat nucleus accumbens. J Neurosci. 1995;15:3808–3820. [PubMed]
  • 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. [PubMed]
  • Mogenson GJ, Wu M. Neuropharmacological and electrophysiological evidence implicating the mesolimbic dopamine system in feeding responses elicited by electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle. Brain Res. 1982;253:243–251. [PubMed]
  • Mogenson GJ, Yang CR. The contribution of basal forebrain to limbic-motor integration and the mediation of motivation to action. Adv Exp Med Biol. 1991;295:267–290. [PubMed]
  • Parkinson JA, Olmstead MC, Burns LH, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. Dissociation in effects of lesions of the nucleus accumbens core and shell on appetitive pavlovian approach behavior and the potentiation of conditioned reinforcement and locomotor activity by D-amphetamine. J Neurosci. 1999;19:2401–2411. [PubMed]
  • Parkinson JA, Willoughby PJ, Robbins TW, Everitt BJ. Disconnection of the anterior cingulate cortex and nucleus accumbens core impairs Pavlovian approach behavior: further evidence for limbic cortical-ventral striatopallidal systems. Behav Neurosci. 2000;114:42–63. [PubMed]
  • Pecina S, Berridge KC. Hedonic hot spot in nucleus accumbens shell: where do muopioids cause increased hedonic impact of sweetness? J Neurosci. 2005;25:11777–11786. [PubMed]
  • Peyron C, Tighe DK, van den Pol AN, de Lecea L, Heller HC, Sutcliffe JG, Kilduff TS. Neurons containing hypocretin (orexin) project to multiple neuronal systems. J Neurosci. 1998;18:9996–10015. [PubMed]
  • Phillips GD, Setzu E, Hitchcott PK. Facilitation of appetitive pavlovian conditioning by d-amphetamine in the shell, but not the core, of the nucleus accumbens. Behav Neurosci. 2003a;117:675–684. [PubMed]
  • Phillips GD, Setzu E, Vugler A, Hitchcott PK. Immunohistochemical assessment of mesotelencephalic dopamine activity during the acquisition and expression of Pavlovian versus instrumental behaviours. Neuroscience. 2003b;117:755–767. [PubMed]
  • Phillips PE, Stuber GD, Heien ML, Wightman RM, Carelli RM. Subsecond dopamine release promotes cocaine seeking. Nature. 2003c;422:614–618. [PubMed]
  • Pontieri FE, Tanda G, Di Chiara G. Intravenous cocaine, morphine, and amphetamine preferentially increase extracellular dopamine in the ”shell” as compared with the ”core” of the rat nucleus accumbens. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1995;92:12304–12308. [PMC free article] [PubMed]
  • Pulvirenti L, Berrier R, Kreifeldt M, Koob GF. Modulation of locomotor activity by NMDA receptors in the nucleus accumbens core and shell regions of the rat. Brain Res. 1994;664:231–236. [PubMed]
  • Ragsdale CW, Jr., Graybiel AM. Fibers from the basolateral nucleus of the amygdala selectively innervate striosomes in the caudate nucleus of the cat. J Comp Neurol. 1988;269:506–522. [PubMed]
  • Rall W. Dynamic patterns of brain cell assemblies. II. Concept of dynamic patterns. Nonequilibrium steady states and nerve membrane biophysics. Neurosci Res Program Bull. 1974;12:27–30. [PubMed]
  • Ramón y Cajal S. Histologie du Système Nerveux de l'Homme et des Vertèbres. Marloine; Paris: 1911.
  • Robinson TE, Kolb B. Alterations in the morphology of dendrites and dendritic spines in the nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex following repeated treatment with amphetamine or cocaine. Eur J Neurosci. 1999;11:1598–1604. [PubMed]
  • Scheel-Krüger J, Willner P. The mesolimbic syszgtem: principles of operation. In: Willner P, Scheel-Krüger J, editors. The Mesolimbic Dopamine System: From Motivation to Action. John Wiley and Sons, Ltd.; Chichester: 1991. pp. 559–597.
  • Sexton PM, Paxinos G, Kenney MA, Wookey PJ, Beaumont K. In vitro autoradiographic localization of amylin binding sites in rat brain. Neuroscience. 1994;62:553–567. [PubMed]
  • Smith-Roe SL, Sadeghian K, Kelley AE. Spatial learning and performance in the radial arm maze is impaired after N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor blockade in striatal subregions. Behav Neurosci. 1999;113:703–717. [PubMed]
  • Stratford TR, Kelley AE. GABA in the nucleus accumbens shell participates in the central regulation of feeding behavior. J Neurosci. 1997;17:4434–4440. [PubMed]
  • Swanson CJ, Heath S, Stratford TR, Kelley AE. Differential behavioral responses to dopaminergic stimulation of nucleus accumbens subregions in the rat. Pharmacol Biochem Behav. 1997;58:933–945. [PubMed]
  • Thomas KL, Everitt BJ. Limbic-cortical-ventral striatal activation during retrieval of a discrete cocaine-associated stimulus: a cellular imaging study with gamma protein kinase C expression. J Neurosci. 2001;21:2526–2535. [PubMed]
  • van Rossum D, Menard DP, Fournier A, St-Pierre S, Quirion R. Autoradiographic distribution and receptor binding profile of [125I]Bolton Hunter-rat amylin binding sites in the rat brain. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;270:779–787. [PubMed]
  • Voorn P, Gerfen CR, Groenewegen HJ. Compartmental organization of the ventral striatum of the rat: immunohistochemical distribution of enkephalin, substance P, dopamine, and calcium-binding protein. J Comp Neurol. 1989;289:189–201. [PubMed]
  • Voorn P, Jorritsma-Byham B, Van Dijk C, Buijs RM. The dopaminergic innervation of the ventral striatum in the rat: a light- and electron-microscopical study with antibodies against dopamine. J Comp Neurol. 1986;251:84–99. [PubMed]
  • Voorn P, Vanderschuren LJ, Groenewegen HJ, Robbins TW, Pennartz CM. Putting a spin on the dorsal-ventral divide of the striatum. Trends Neurosci. 2004;27:468–474. [PubMed]
  • Wilson CJ, Groves PM, Kitai ST, Linder JC. Three-dimensional structure of dendritic spines in the rat neostriatum. J Neurosci. 1983;3:383–388. [PubMed]
  • Wolf ME. The role of excitatory amino acids in behavioral sensitization to psychomotor stimulants. Prog Neurobiol. 1998;54:679–720. [PubMed]
  • Wolf ME, Mangiavacchi S, Sun X. Mechanisms by which dopamine receptors may influence synaptic plasticity. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2003;1003:241–249. [PubMed]
  • Wolf ME, Sun X, Mangiavacchi S, Chao SZ. Psychomotor stimulants and neuronal plasticity. Neuropharmacology. 2004;47(Suppl 1):61–79. [PubMed]
  • Wood DA, Rebec GV. Dissociation of core and shell single-unit activity in the nucleus accumbens in free-choice novelty. Behav Brain Res. 2004;152:59–66. [PubMed]
  • Wright CI, Beijer AV, Groenewegen HJ. Basal amygdaloid complex afferents to the rat nucleus accumbens are compartmentally organized. J Neurosci. 1996;16:1877–1893. [PubMed]
  • Zaborszky L, Alheid GF, Beinfeld MC, Eiden LE, Heimer L, Palkovits M. Cholecystokinin innervation of the ventral striatum: a morphological and radioimmunological study. Neuroscience. 1985;14:427–453. [PubMed]
  • Zahm DS. An electron microscopic morphometric comparison of tyrosine hydroxylase immunoreactive innervation in the neostriatum and the nucleus accumbens core and shell. Brain Res. 1992;575:341–346. [PubMed]
  • Zhang M, Balmadrid C, Kelley AE. Nucleus accumbens opioid, GABaergic, and dopaminergic modulation of palatable food motivation: contrasting effects revealed by a progressive ratio study in the rat. Behav Neurosci. 2003;117:202–211. [PubMed]
  • Zhang M, Gosnell BA, Kelley AE. Intake of high-fat food is selectively enhanced by mu opioid receptor stimulation within the nucleus accumbens. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1998;285:908–914. [PubMed]
PubReader format: click here to try

Formats:

Related citations in PubMed

See reviews...See all...

Cited by other articles in PMC

See all...

Links

  • PubMed
    PubMed
    PubMed citations for these articles

Recent Activity

Your browsing activity is empty.

Activity recording is turned off.

Turn recording back on

See more...