, 2012 and many others). To address how

the observed NAcc activity relates to potentially distinct approach behaviors, McGinty et al. (2013) provide an unconventional but illuminating comparison. Nicola (2010) previously reported that NAcc dopamine transmission is required to perform the “flexible approach” task (which is the focus of McGinty et al., 2013), but not to perform a different, “inflexible approach” task. On this “inflexible” task, NAcc neurons only weakly predicted approach response speed, and no prediction learn more of response latency was possible. As noted by McGinty et al. (2013), the striking contrast between NAcc activity on the flexible and inflexible approach tasks may help explain why other studies that have separated cue- and movement-related components report no link between NAcc activity and the vigor of subsequent movement (e.g., Goldstein et al., 2012). An important issue for further work would be to isolate the precise task difference(s) responsible for this contrast, for instance, by separating the number of possible approach starting locations from the (un)predictability

of the cue and the associated re-engagement with Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor Library mw the task upon cue onset. Along those same lines, the amount of experience with the task, and its dependence on motivational state and instrumental contingencies, may shape differentially the extent of NAcc involvement on the two tasks. Either way, the findings of McGinty et al. (2013) and Nicola (2010) provide a productive way forward in the untangling of the role of the NAcc in motivated behavior. A different key question about the cue-evoked, movement-predicting NAcc activity concerns precisely what is encoded. Does this activity signal a single number, indicating the level of vigor, or is there more to it? The NAcc mediates the Asenapine influence of a number of so-called “decision variables” on behavior: these include quantities such as expected (subjective) value, delay, effort, and others (Tremblay et al., 2009). McGinty et al. (2013) identify proximity to the lever at the time of the cue as

an important determiner of NAcc activity, an observation potentially compatible with contributions from a number of decision variables, including subjective value, delay, and effort. Untangling these possible contributions will probably yield new insights into the neural basis of normal as well as dysfunctional motivated behavior. For instance, studies of relapse (reinstatement) of drug use indicate that, both in humans and rodents, cues previously paired with drug reward are powerful drivers of relapse (Kalivas and McFarland, 2003). A related direction for future work stems from the observation that the NAcc can direct behavior in settings with more than a single approach target. For instance, Flagel et al.