Abstract

How mood interacts with information processing in the brain is thought to mediate the maladaptive behaviors observed in depressed individuals. However, the neural mechanisms underlying impairments in emotion-cognition interactions are poorly understood. This includes influencing the balance between how past-sensitive vs. future-looking one is during decision-making. Recent insights from the field of neuroeconomics offer novel approaches to study changes in such valuation processes in a manner that is biologically tractable and readily translatable across species. We recently discovered that rodents are sensitive to "sunk costs" - a feature of higher cognition previously thought to be unique to humans. The sunk costs bias describes the phenomenon in which an individual overvalues and escalates commitment to continuing an ongoing endeavor, even if suboptimal, as a function of irrecoverable past (sunk) losses - information that, according to classic economic theory, should be ignored. In the present study, mice were exposed to chronic social defeat stress paradigm, a well-established animal model used for the study of depression. Mice were then tested on our longitudinal neuroeconomic foraging task, Restaurant Row. We found mice exposed to this severe stressor displayed an increased sensitivity to sunk costs, without altering overall willingness to wait. Mice were then randomly assigned to receive a single intraperitoneal injection of either saline or ketamine (20 mg/kg). We discovered that stress-induced hypersensitivity to sunk costs was renormalized following a single dose of ketamine. Interestingly, in non-defeated mice, ketamine treatment completely abolished sunk cost sensitivity, causing mice to no longer value irrecoverable losses during re-evaluation decisions who instead based choices solely on the future investment required to obtain a goal. These findings suggest that the antidepressant effects of ketamine may be mediated in part through changes in the processing of past-sensitive information during on-going decision-making, reducing its weight as a potential source of cognitive dissonance that could modulate behavior and instead promoting more future-thinking behavior.