Abstract
Sensory processing disorder (SPD), a developmental regulatory condition characterized by marked under- or over-responsivity to non-noxious sensory stimulation, is a common but poorly understood disorder that can profoundly affect mood, cognition, social behavior and adaptive life skills. Little is known about the etiology and neural underpinnings. Clinical research indicates that children with SPD show greater prevalence of difficulties in complex cognitive behavior including working memory, behavioral flexibility, and regulation of sensory and affective functions, which are related to prefrontal cortex (PFC), striatal, and midbrain regions. Neuroimaging may provide insight into mechanisms underlying SPD, and animal experiments provide important evidence that is not available in human studies. Rhesus monkeys (N = 73) were followed over a 20-year period from birth into old age. We focused on a single sensory modality, the tactile system, measured at 5–7 years, because of its critical importance for nourishment, attachment, and social reward in development. Positron emission tomography imaging was conducted at ages 12–18 years to quantify the availability of the D1 and D2 subtypes of the DA receptor (D1R and D2R), and the DA transporter (DAT). Heightened tactile responsivity was related to (a) elevated D1R in PFC overall, including lateral, ventrolateral, medial, anterior cingulate (aCg), frontopolar, and orbitofrontal (OFC) subregions, as well as nucleus accumbens (Acb), (b) reduced D2R in aCg, OFC, and substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area, and (c) elevated DAT in putamen. These findings suggest a mechanism by which DA pathways may be altered in SPD. These pathways are associated with reward processing and pain regulation, providing top-down regulation of sensory and affective processes. The balance between top-down cognitive control in the PFC-Acb pathway and bottom-up motivational function of the VTA-Acb-PFC pathway is critical for successful adaptive function. An imbalance in these two systems might explain DA-related symptoms in children with SPD, including reduced top-down regulatory function and exaggerated responsivity to stimuli. These results provide more direct evidence that SPD may involve altered DA receptor and transporter function in PFC, striatal, and midbrain regions. More work is needed to extend these results to humans.
Introduction
The ability of the brain to receive, integrate, and respond to sensory information from an ever-changing environment is essential for adaptive behavior. Tactile defensiveness, defined as over-responsivity to tactile sensory input, was a term introduced by Jean Ayres, an occupational therapist and founder of sensory integration theory, over 50 years ago (, ; ). Atypical sensory integration (; ; ), also referred to as sensory processing disorder (SPD) () includes (a) over-reactivity, or heightened, aversive, or avoidant responses to sensory stimuli, (b) hypo-reactivity, or reduced, delayed or absent responses to stimuli, and (c) sensory craving, an excessive fascination or desire for sensory input [see ()]. SPD, estimated to affect 5–16% of children (; ) is associated with enduring challenges in mood, cognition, motor function, daily adaptive and social behavior, leading to impairments in family life and well-being (; ; ; ; ; ; ). The most recent DSM-5 () added hyper- and hypo-sensitivity to sound and touch to the diagnostic cluster of symptoms defining autism spectrum condition (ASC). Mounting evidence indicates that SPD has overlap but is distinct from ASC (; ; ).
The neural mechanisms underlying atypical sensory processing function represent a fundamental unresolved question. Understanding of underlying neural dysfunction is of critical importance for effective interventions and to improve developmental outcomes for these children and their families. Some evidence indicates that children with SPD compared to typically developing children show autonomic nervous system dysregulation, observed as lower vagal tone and altered electrodermal response, and less efficient sensory gating (; ; ; ; ). Thus far neuroimaging studies have been limited to diffusion tensor imaging (DTI), which have implicated reduced white matter integrity in various pathways as playing key roles in SPD (; , ). For example, striking decreases were shown in posterior-located sensory projection areas that connect the higher order and multimodal sensory regions (). In a study comparing SPD with ASD, the SPD-only group showed trends for reduced connectivity in all measured frontal tracts () as well as extensive white matter reductions in most of the measured tracts. Whereas ASD and SPD children showed deficient connectivity in sensory processing tracts, the impairments were more striking for the SPD group. Finally, reduced white matter correlated with parent report measures of atypical sensory behavior as well as with direct assessment of tactile and auditory processing ().
In this paper, we present our studies on tactile responsivity and the relations of tactile responsivity to measures of the dopamine system in vivo in rhesus monkeys. Non-human primate models are important because they permit the advantages of randomization to experimental conditions and rigorous control over numerous environmental conditions that are often confounded in human correlational research, such as nutrition and lifestyle. Such factors can have profound effects on brain and behavioral function in humans. Non-human primates serve as excellent models for studying brain-behavior relationships because of the similarity to humans in complex cognitive and social behaviors. Also, the similarity of human and non-human primate brain structures and biological processes affords greater generalizability to human clinical conditions compared with rat studies. Primate studies fill a research gap between rodent studies and human correlational results.
We concentrated on a single sensory modality, the tactile system, because of the importance of the tactile system in primates for nourishment (rooting and sucking reflexes), contact comfort and attachment, which are considered early experiences of social reward (; ; ). Social touch can reduce negative affect and promote pleasurable positive feelings depending upon context and motivational state [see ()]. Evidence from human and animal studies has shown that reduced maternal and social touch causes adverse outcomes in offspring including impaired attachment and reduced cognition (; ; ) for a review of classic studies of humans and animals [see ()].
We used non-invasive in vivo molecular imaging by positron emission tomography (PET) to examine the dopamine (DA) system in specific brain regions in the context of two longitudinal experiments on the effects of prenatal exposure to stress and/or alcohol, compared with controls, in rhesus monkeys. We focused on the DAergic neurotransmitter system because of the importance of this system in regulating most facets of human behavior, including cognitive function, emotion regulation, motor control, reward, motivation and response to stressors. DA is one of several neurotransmitters thought to modulate social touch in mammals (). For example, human studies have shown that massage therapy, compared to relaxation, increases urinary measures of dopamine and serotonin (). In rats, mild non-noxious tactile stimulation in the form of stroking increased nucleus accumbens (Acb) DA signaling and effects were extinguished after lesioning the VTA (). This underscores the important relation between the social touch system and the mesolimbic DA system.
Dopamine receptors are classified as D1-like receptors (D1 and D5) and D2-like receptors (D2, D3, and D4), based on their molecular structures, pharmacology, and signal transduction mechanism (; ). D2R’s are found mostly in striatum, while D1R’s are widely distributed in the brain (). D1R’s have a particularly crucial role in sustaining higher cognitive functions including attention, response inhibition, working memory, and executive function (; ). D2Rs are involved in response to novel, salient or rewarding stimuli, response inhibition, emotion regulation, and mediation of addiction. The DA transporter (DAT) rapidly clears DA from the extracellular space, limiting the amplitude and duration of DA signaling, and maintaining homeostasis in the DA system.
In order to further understand the neural underpinnings of SPD, we tested the hypothesis that DA system function would be related to tactile processing function in rhesus monkeys. To accomplish this, rhesus monkeys from two 20-year prospective longitudinal experiments were examined using a novel behavioral assay for assessing sensory processing function in adult macaque monkeys, the Sensory Processing Scale for Monkeys (SPS-M) (). We adapted procedures from sensory processing assessments for humans (; ). In our assessment, mild repetitive tactile stimulation items were administered to the adult monkey to assess the pattern of responsivity across trials. Compared to control monkeys, the monkeys prenatally exposed to mild stress or alcohol during different gestational periods showed heightened tactile responsiveness (HTR), though the effects showed some sensitivity to gestational timing of exposures as well as serotonin transporter genotype (,).
Our series of PET studies on the animals from these two experiments were conducted to assess D1Rs, D2Rs, and DAT in the frontal-striatal circuit, an important brain region in regulatory function (). We used radiotracers specific to binding to D1R, D2R, and DAT. We were particularly interested in PFC and striatum and their sub-regions because of their critical role in organizing complex cognitive function and translating stimulus properties into adaptive behavior, as well as midbrain, the location of DA cell bodies. In this paper we examined the relationships of ligand binding to our findings from the SPS-M (), concentrating on brain regions that had shown effects of DA in our previous work (, ; ).
Materials And Methods
Subjects
Subjects were 73 rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta) from two experiments involving prenatal stress and/or fetal alcohol exposure [see (, ) for details]. Briefly, in Expt 1, female monkey breeders were exposed to one of four prenatal treatments: (1) prenatal alcohol (voluntary daily consumption of 0.6 g/kg alcohol solution); (2) controls voluntarily consumed a solution equivolemic and equicaloric to #1; (3) mild prenatal stress (exposure to 3 loud noise bursts five times weekly; and (4) prenatal alcohol and prenatal stress (#1 plus #3). In Expt 2, female breeders were exposed to one of four prenatal treatments: (1) early gestation alcohol (daily prenatal alcohol consumption (0.6 g/kg) on gestation days 0–50); (2) mid-late gestation alcohol (gestation days 50–135); (3) continuous gestation alcohol (gestation days 0–135), or (4) control (equivolemic and equicaloric solution consumed on gestation days 0–50, 50–135 or 0–135). Infant monkeys were housed with their mothers in individual cages during the first 6 months of life. At 6 months, they were separated from their mothers for weaning and then reared in mixed-sex peer groups consisting of 5–6 monkeys from similar prenatal conditions. From 32 months of age on, the animals were pair-housed with same-sex peers. These studies were approved by and conducted in accordance with the Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee of the University of Wisconsin-Madison.
General Procedures
All monkeys were fed a standard ration of Purina Monkey Chow (Purina Mills, St. Louis, MO, United States) supplemented three times weekly with fresh fruit. Tap water was available ad libitum. All animals were housed under identical conditions, undisturbed except for necessary routine animal husbandry. Lighting and temperature housing conditions were controlled with 16 h light (6 am lights on), 8 h dark, and temperature 21°C + 5°C.
Adult Sensory Processing Scale for Monkeys (SPS-M)
The SPS-M was adapted from laboratory observational measures of sensory processing for children (; ). The SPS-M has been described in detail previously (). All animals in the study (Expts 1 and 2) underwent identical SPS-M testing, conducted when the monkeys were 5 to 7 years old. It was conducted in a 53 × 44 cm testing cage situated in a dimly lit and sound-shielded room (62 dB) with a masking white noise of 65–70 dB. Each monkey was tested individually by a human experimenter who stood beside the cage and administered a series of 18 tactile stimulation items (6 feather trials, 6 cottonball trials, and 6 brush trials, stimuli were attached to a pole) through the bars of the cage as a swipe to the cheek and neck area to assess the pattern of responsiveness across trials. Prior to the first presentation of each stimulus, the stimulus was placed in full view and touching range of the monkey and remained there for approximately 3-s. Once the animal looked at the object, the examiner slowly moved the stimulus into the cage and began the series of trials. Raters blind to the condition and history of the animals scored the subjects’ responses for degree of withdrawal from tactile stimuli in 0.25 increments on a 0 to 3 rating scale with the integers labeled as follows: 0 = no withdrawal; 1 = slight withdrawal, such as turning head away from the stimulation; 2 = moderate withdrawal, such as turning full body away from stimulation; 3 = extreme withdrawal, such as moving body away from stimulation. As described in , six scores were derived that represented the mean response to the six presentations of each texture, and the linear trend of the response to each texture over the six presentations. The scores presented here are called “Sensory factor 1” in . The weights in creating the factor score are 0.73 * Feather mean +0.94 * Cotton mean +0.91 * Brush mean −0.42 * Feather linear −0.27 * Cotton linear.
Positron Emission Tomography (PET)
Positron emission tomography scans were acquired when monkeys were 12 to 18 years old as described in greater detail elsewhere (, ; ). Briefly, procedures were as follows. Radiotracer: D1R-type binding was measured using [11C]SCH 23390 (), which is specific to D1. D2R-type was measured with [18F]fallypride (), which is specific to D2 and D3, and DAT was measured with [18F]FECNT (). Monkeys were imaged in separate scans for each radiotracer. Due to multiple constraints during the two longitudinal studies, 39 of 73 subjects were imaged with all three radiotracers and assessed for tactile responsivity. Rather than discard data from subjects with incomplete measures, we analyzed data for each radiotracer from all animals that had undergone tactile assessments. Scanning protocol: Subjects were anesthetized with isoflurane and positioned in a microPET P4 or Focus 220 scanner with better than 2 mm full width at half maximum spatial resolution (, ). Following a transmission scan, an emission scan was started and a 5 mCi bolus of radiotracer was injected intravenously. Image reconstruction: Emission data were temporally binned at 5 × 1, 5 × 2, and 3 × 5 min, with additional 10-min frames. The transmission scan was reconstructed to create an attenuation map. Emission images were created by filtered backprojection with corrections for detector sensitivity, dead time, radioactive decay, attenuation, and scatter. Image processing: Time-averaged 3D images were aligned to a labeled MRI template by affine transformations with nine degrees of freedom, equivalent to shifts, rotations, and zooms in three axes. The resulting transformations were applied to the 4D images (). Motion correction was applied as needed. Time-activity curves were determined for anatomically defined regions of interest (). Because of their significance in DA neural circuits, the following regions were examined: (1) PFC including subdivisions of medial PFC (mPFC), which includes anterior cingulate (aCg), lateral (lPFC), which includes ventrolateral (vlPFC) and dorsolateral (dlPFC) subregions, frontopolar (FPC), and orbitofrontal (OFC), (2) striatum including caudate nucleus (Cd), putamen (Pu), and nucleus accumbens (Acb), and (3) in midbrain, substantia nigra/ventral tegmental area (SN/VTA). Pharmacokinetic modeling: Using a cerebellar reference region, distribution volume ratios (DVRs) were calculated for the periods 20–60 min (D1) and 90–150 min (D2 and DAT) post-injection of radiotracer (). The binding potential with respect to non-displaceable tracer, proportional to the available receptor concentration, was then given by BPND = DVR-1 ().
Statistical Analyses
The sensory scores for the SPS-M are described in detail in . In this paper we used “sensory factor 1” as reported in , hereafter referred to as “sensory score.” This variable represents the magnitude of the sensory response across the three stimuli (feather, cotton, brush) and failure to habituate to the feather and cotton ball. Hence, higher scores indicate higher sensory responsivity, and less habituation over trials.
Relationships between sensory score and binding of the three separate radiotracers measuring D1R, D2R, and DAT in the ROIs were analyzed by Pearson correlations. We examined scatterplots separately by experiment, prior to combining the two experiments, and the two experiments are shown as distinct symbols in Figures 2–4.
Results
Table 1 shows the relations between binding potential for each of the three radiotracers and sensory scores for the brain ROI’s examined here (PFC, striatum, and midbrain). The regions with significant correlations are summarized in Figure 1. We present the results by each aspect of the DAergic system in turn, D1R, D2R, and DAT.
TABLE 1
| Binding target | D1R | D2R | DAT | |||
| Radiotracer | [11C]SCH 23390 | [18F]fallypride | [18F]FECNT | |||
| Sample size | N = 64, df = 62 | N = 46, df = 44 | N = 73, df = 71 | |||
| Age (years) at scan: Mean (sd) | 13.06 (1.62) | 14.50 (3.89) | 12.85 (1.44) | |||
| Pearson correlation (95% conf. int.) | Raw p-value (p adjusted by FDR) | Pearson correlation (95% conf. int.) | Raw p-value (p adjusted by FDR) | Pearson correlation (95% conf. int.) | Raw p-value (p adjusted by FDR) | |
| PFC | 0.30 (0.06,0.51) | 0.016 (0.032) | −0.19 (−0.45,0.11) | 0.214 (0.408) | 0.06 (−0.18,0.28) | 0.640 (0.800) |
| lPFC | 0.25 (0.01,0.47) | 0.045 (0.052) | −0.08 (−0.36,0.22) | 0.611 (0.698) | No sig. binding | |
| vlPFC | 0.27 (0.03,0.48) | 0.031 (0.041) | −0.17 (−0.44,0.13) | 0.255 (0.408) | 0.07 (−0.16,0.30) | 0.532 (0.800) |
| dlPFC | 0.23 (−0.02,0.45) | 0.069 (0.069) | −0.01 (−0.30,0.28) | 0.964 (0.964) | No sig. binding | |
| mPFC | 0.32 (0.08,0.52) | 0.011 (0.032) | −0.21 (−0.47,0.09) | 0.166 (0.408) | 0.14 (−0.10,0.36) | 0.248 (0.655) |
| aCg | 0.27 (0.03,0.49) | 0.028 (0.041) | −0.30 (−0.54, −0.01) | 0.043 (0.178) | 0.13 (−0.10,0.35) | 0.262 (0.655) |
| FPC | 0.30 (0.06,0.51) | 0.016 (0.032) | −0.14 (−0.41,0.16) | 0.365 (0.487) | No sig. binding | |
| OFC | 0.30 (0.06,0.51) | 0.016 (0.032) | −0.30 (−0.54, −0.01) | 0.045 (0.178) | −0.02 (−0.25,0.21) | 0.890 (0.890) |
| Striatum | 0.22 (−0.03,0.44) | 0.081 (0.108) | −0.25 (−0.50, 0.05) | 0.098 (0.140) | 0.23 (−0.00,0.44) | 0.053 (0.105) |
| Acb | 0.27 (0.02,0.48) | 0.032 (0.108) | −0.22 (−0.54, −0.01) * | 0.154 (0.154) | 0.16 (−0.08,0.37) | 0.187 (0.187) |
| Cd | 0.23 (−0.02,0.45) | 0.068 (0.108) | −0.24 (−0.50,0.05) | 0.103 (0.140) | 0.19 (−0.04,0.41) | 0.102 (0.136) |
| Pu | 0.20 (−0.05,0.42) | 0.116 (0.116) | −0.24 (−0.50,0.05) | 0.105 (0.140) | 0.24 (0.01,0.45) | 0.042 (0.105) |
| SN/VTA | 0.12 (−0.13,0.36) | 0.349 | −0.30 (−0.54, −0.01) | 0.043 | 0.05 (−0.18,0.28) | 0.686 |
Pearson correlations between sensory score and binding of the three radiotracers listed by brain ROI.
Correlations with unadjusted p < 0.05 in bold. *N = 45, one outlier removed. FDR denotes p-adjustment by false discovery rate within each major brain region (PFC and Striatum) by radiotracer.
FIGURE 1
D1R Binding
As shown in the first column of Table 1, the relationship between sensory score and D1R binding potential in the PFC was significant for the whole PFC (r = 0.30, p < 0.05), and also for all of the more detailed PFC ROIs except the dlPFC. Figure 2 shows a PET image of typical D1R binding potential in PFC in the left-hand panel. The right-hand panel shows the scatterplot of the relation between sensory score and D1R binding potential in PFC, along with the linear regression. Outside of PFC, the Acb also showed a significant positive correlation between D1R binding potential and sensory score.
FIGURE 2
D2R Binding
The middle columns of Table 1 show that sensory score was negatively correlated with D2R binding potential in the aCg, OFC, and SN/VTA. Figure 3 shows a PET image of typical D2R binding potential in the left-hand panel. The right-hand panel of Figure 3 shows the scatterplot of the relation between sensory score and D2R binding potential in midbrain, along with the linear regression.
FIGURE 3
DAT Binding
The right hand two columns of Table 1 show that sensory score was unrelated to DAT binding potential, except for a significant positive correlation in the putamen, with a trend in the whole striatum. Figure 4 shows a PET image of typical DAT binding potential, and the scatterplot for the significant relation between sensory score and DAT binding potential in putamen. As might be expected (), DAT showed no significant binding (i.e., binding potential not significantly greater than zero) for three of the cortical areas (the lPFC, dlPFC, and the FPC).
FIGURE 4
Discussion
A unique contribution of our study is that, to our knowledge, this is the first study to use PET neuroimaging to interrogate underlying DA neurotransmitter function for possible associations with heightened tactile responsivity (HTR) to non-noxious stimuli in monkeys. Below we integrate the results of our study with the research and clinical findings on children with SPD, the literature on the functions of DA in various areas of the brain, and the functional significances of the brain pathways to which our results pertain. We also relate the results to concepts in the literature regarding optimal D1R levels, and the complementarity and distinct functions of D1Rs, D2Rs, and DAT.
PFC
The first findings from this study are that in the PFC, including the mPFC, vlPFC, frontopolar PFC, and aCg, HTR is related to elevated D1R, and reduced D2R availability in OFC and aCg. PFC is an evolutionarily advanced structure that projects to other cortical and subcortical areas to modulate many sensory and affective functions (; ). The PFC is a major component of a cortical network that links stimulus perception and action in order for the organism to adaptively respond to continuously changing environments (). PET studies of adults are consistent with conclusions from the animal literature that D1Rs in PFC are involved in motor function, reward mechanisms, learning and working memory (; ), behavioral functions that are challenging for many individuals with SPD ().
In our study, both elevated D1R availability and reduced D2R availability in OFC and aCg were related to HTR. OFC, a primary component of PFC, has extensive connections with sensory areas as well as limbic regions involved in goal-directed decision making, emotional processing, and flexible responding based on reward value (; ; ; ; ). OFC signals expectations of future outcomes and can heighten anticipatory anxiety by inflating prediction of threat (; ).
In mPFC, including the aCg, HTR was related to increased D1R availability. The mPFC is considered to be a limbic forebrain area that supports not only sensorimotor gating (; ; ; ; ; ), but also complex goal-directed behaviors, cognitive flexibility, attention, emotion, and “self-referential” emotion processing (; ; ; ; ; ; ; ). Thus, increased D1R availability in aCg and mPFC is consistent with research indicating that children with SPD have difficulties in mood and emotion regulation, attention, and spatial memory, as well as sensorimotor gating.
Lastly, for our cortical results, our study showed that HTR was related to elevated D1R availability in ventrolateral and frontopolar PFC. These areas are considered important for information integration and response selection, coupling stimulus perception with action, and thereby enabling flexible responding (). Flexible responding can pose difficulties in children with SPD ().
To date, it appears there are no studies of D1R availability in PFC in children or adults with SPD. Highlighting the importance of D1R in behavioral regulation, studies in patients with various psychiatric diagnoses have shown either elevation or reduction of D1R availability in frontal cortex. Psychiatric diagnoses studied include seasonal affective disorder (), schizophrenia (), and drug naïve patients with schizophrenia (), and see (). Studies are clearly needed to examine D1R levels in individuals with SPD who do not have other psychiatric disorders.
Striatum
The striatum, which includes the putamen, Acb, and caudate nucleus, is a subcortical structure that has a critical role in motor control, cognition, behavioral flexibility, and associative behaviors, functions in which children with SPD are often challenged (). We found that increased DAT in putamen and increased D1R in the Acb were related to HTR. DAT in striatum is considered to be important for maintaining dopaminergic tone, that is, homeostatic levels of synaptic DA (). It is possible that increased DAT binding potential in putamen is associated with HTR in the present study in part because of problematic homeostatic DA functions. Our present results are consistent with our previous publication on Experiment 1 that showed that overall magnitude of sensory responsivity and habituation to repeated tactile stimulation were related to DAT binding potential in striatum ().
The Acb, a main structure of the ventral striatum, is also a major component of a pain regulation pathway to the PFC, as well as having involvement in reward processing and substance use (). An interesting issue relevant to our finding of a relation between HTR and increased D1R availability in Acb concerns the relationship between DA function and social behavior. It is well documented that children with SPD often have social difficulties (). Early social interactions in mammals involve nursing and parental care, in which the oxytocin-mesolimbic DA systems play an important role (). Animal and human studies indicate that processing of social-emotional stimuli occurs in brain regions that also process reward, including the Acb (). Parental caregiving, social play and sexual behaviors are immensely rewarding for both humans (; ) and animals () leading to pleasure, well-being, and associative learning (). An increase in DA signaling, particularly in the Acb reward system, has been shown in high licking/grooming rodent mothers, accompanied by increased levels of D1 and D3 receptors in Acb (), whereas maternal neglect is associated with dysregulation of DA transmission (). The social linkages of DA in Acb also depend on neural connections to the midbrain, especially the VTA ().
Midbrain
Dopamine cell bodies are located in the midbrain in the substantia nigra (SN) and the ventral tegmentum (VTA), and they project to the striatum and PFC. D2Rs in SN/VTA serve as auto-receptors in a negative feedback loop to moderate dopaminergic signaling (). In this study, reduced D2R availability in SN/VTA was associated with HTR. Interestingly, in mice, activation of DA neurons in the VTA that project to Acb enhanced social interaction; this increase in social interaction was blocked by a D1R antagonist infused into the Acb (). Moreover, increased D1R signaling restored social interaction and hedonic behaviors, while inhibition of VTA DA neurons projecting to Acb enhanced depressive-like behaviors (). Given these rodent findings, it is plausible that the coupling of altered DA function with HTR in our study, which was pronounced in the DA-mediated reward and pain pathways, might underpin the social challenges that many children with SPD show.
Implications for Functional Pathways Across Midbrain, Striatum and PFC
As mentioned in the introduction, research on children using DTI has identified a number of pathways that appear to be disrupted in SPD, including some limited evidence for reduced connectivity in frontal tracts, as well as disruption of posterior-located sensory projection areas (; , ). These findings in children suggest the importance of further research on the roles of neurotransmitter functioning in brain connectivity in SPD.
Highly relevant to SPD is the strong functional connectivity of PFC and Acb, a critical pathway that regulates both sensory and affective elements of pain (; ). Projections from PFC to Acb have also been shown to inhibit both acute and chronic pain behaviors in rodents (; ). In rats, disruption of this pathway heightens nociceptive sensitivity and enhances aversive responses to pain stimuli (), whereas excitation of this pathway reduces pain behaviors and inhibits withdrawal responses (; ).
Research supports the idea that the cortico-limbic pathway (mPFC, including the aCg, and OFC) provides top-down regulation of sensory and affective processes via the PFC-Acb pathway. The bottom-up midbrain-striato-frontal pathway (VTA-Acb-PFC) provides the motivation or drive for action, and both the VTA-Acb projection and the VTA-mPFC projections have been shown be directly involved in reward (). We found opposing effects of D1R availability and D2R availability in both aCg and OFC. The balance between these two complex and interdependent pathways, the top-down cognitive control PFC-Acb pathway and the bottom-up motivational or drive VTA-Acb-PFC pathway, is considered important for successful goal-directed behavior and mood (; ). Imbalances in the interactions between these two systems can yield behaviors biased toward the subcortical motivational system, including exaggerated reactivity to motivational stimuli and sensation-seeking. Such imbalances are thought to be as a consequence of delayed or altered development of the top-down PFC regulatory system (; ). Sensation-seeking and risky behavior are characteristics often linked to SPD (). Taken together, our current data support the notion that D1R:D2R mediated imbalances in the PFC-Acb reward and pain regulation pathway, could involve reduction of the PFC top-down control. In turn, this imbalance could cascade into the sensory over-responsive phenotype of SPD along with other cognitive and affective behaviors.
Complementarity of D1R and D2R Functions
Our findings are also in line with evidence that D1R and D2R have distinct and often opposing functions. For example, D1 and D2 receptors exert opposite effects in locomotion and its spatial distribution, as well as snout contact, mouthing, and grooming (, ). So, it is not surprising, for example, that D1R versus D2R knock-out mice show opposite phenotypes in cognitive and motor tasks (). Increased D1R receptor availability, with no change in D2R receptor availability, alters the ratio of D1R:D2R signaling toward D1R, which is thought to contribute to risk for both addiction and hyperactivity (). Interestingly, optimal cognition follows an inverted U-shaped function such that either inadequate or excessive D1R stimulation can erode cognition while moderate levels can enhance function (; ; ). Optimal D1R stimulation is thought to gate out “noisy input” from nearby connections through a variety of mechanisms (see , ).
A further concept relevant to the potential role of DA in SPD is that neurotransmitter activity modulated via the D1 versus the D2 receptor subtypes may affect the activity of thalamocortical neurons that relay sensory information from the periphery to the sensory cortex and other brain areas. Different firing patterns appear to be associated with behavioral state changes and, in turn, influence behavior (). Taken together, our findings of elevated D1R availability and reduced D2R availability in OFC and aCg suggest that alteration of D1R could give rise to downstream effects (altered DA receptors in other regions) that persist and influence HTR symptoms.
Possible Developmental Origins of the Association of Heightened Tactile Responsivity and DA
More detailed elucidation of the mechanisms behind the association of DAergic functions and HTR is needed. One possibility is that abnormal DA system development may alter synaptic plasticity as well as structural connectivity during the neural development of the ventrolateral and dorsolateral PFC. Zhou et al. (2012) contend that D1R up-regulation is one source of abnormalities in synaptic plasticity which, in turn, can underlie neurobehavioral deficits. Conversion of long-term potentiation (LTP) to long-term depression (LTD) in synapses takes place around the postnatal third week in the rat () with the DA system playing a critical role in this transformation (). LTP first appears when synapses are beginning to function in striatum (). LTD emerges later to better calibrate synapses for skilled movement and sequencing of behavior (). Zhou et al. (2012) found that high dose prenatal alcohol exposure (6 g/kg/d, gestation days 7 through 20), resulted in the emergence of LTP instead of LTD at postnatal day 30 by altering D1R and D2R functions in the dorsolateral striatum in male rodent offspring. Thus, it is possible that the altered D1R, D2R, and DAT functions related to HTR detected in our longitudinal studies might be the outcome of altered processes during early development, perhaps especially synaptic plasticity driven by DA. Alteration of these early life neurodevelopmental functions could also lead to possible mis-wiring of neural connections and result in disrupted neurobehavioral outcomes, including SPD.
Limitations
This paper focused only on DAergic function. However, there are other neurotransmitters such as serotonin, glutamate, and GABA, that could interact with DA and contribute to the progression and manifestation of SPD. For example, serotonin can alter DAergic signaling and transmission by activating DA neurons in VTA and Acb (). Despite this limitation of studying only the DA system, the use of in vivo PET is an important strength in this study because it provides quantification of markers of brain neurotransmission in order to examine how DA function correlates with the behavioral phenotype of HTR. Also, the use of 3 radioligands, [11C]SCH 23390, [18F]fallypride, and [18F]FECNT, affords the opportunity to examine D1R, D2R, and DAT availability in separate scans in the same subject.
As in most non-human primate research, the sample size here is limited. A limited sample size is also a common problem in neuroscience research with humans, particularly so in neuroimaging studies with special populations. However, our minimum of 46 subjects is relatively large compared with other primate PET studies. Moreover, a limitation is that the prenatal conditions differed somewhat across the two experiments combined here, and were not analyzed in this paper. In both experiments, monkeys were derived from mothers that, in pre-screening, would voluntarily consume moderate-dose alcohol. These females were then randomly assigned to consume alcohol during specific gestation periods, alone or in combination with mild prenatal stress exposure, compared with randomly assigned controls. We did not include the prenatal treatment findings in this paper because they have been reported elsewhere (, , ; , ).
Conclusion
The results of the present study are the first to demonstrate in vivo that altered D1R, D2R, and DAT availability in the midbrain-cortico-striatal network has a relationship to heightened tactile responsivity in non-human primates. In particular, our evidence supports the likely role of heightened D1R availability in the PFC, including the OFC (cortical) and Acb (subcortical) reward and pain regulation pathways as potential contributors to the neural substrate for SPD. Overall, the results provide support for the hypothesis that imbalances in cortical/subcortical circuitries including OFC-Acb reward circuitry, in which DA signaling via D1R and D2Rs is critical, may be key in the pathophysiology of SPD.
A final noteworthy issue concerns the potential of environmental enrichment as a treatment for DA-related molecular and behavioral effects. In rodents, environmental enrichment has been shown to reduce D1R expression in PFC and striatum (; ) and decrease DAT in PFC (), producing long-lasting functional changes in mesolimbic DA transmission (). In addition, numerous beneficial behavioral effects have resulted from environmental enrichment in rodents (; ; ; ). In non-human primates, social enrichment has been shown to reverse the effects of early life social isolation and lack of touch ().
Animal studies are needed to examine sensitive windows of the development of DA pathways to improve treatment efficacy and therefore diminish the psychological cost of SPD on individuals, their families, and the burdens on society (). Human studies are needed to examine whether interventions to reduce tactile sensitivities and improve developmental outcomes in young children, such as sensory-integration occupational therapy (), could improve DA function as well as SPD-related behaviors such as cognitive control, mood regulation, and adaptive life skills.
Statements
Ethics statement
This study was carried out in accordance with recommendations of the USDA and NIH regarding animal welfare. Protocols were approved by the University of Wisconsin–Madison, Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee.
Author contributions
MS, CM, BC, OD, JH, RN, and AC designed the experiments. MS, EA, TB, BC, OD, JE, JL, LR, DM, RN, and AC performed the experiments. MS, CM, JH, JM, and AC contributed to the data analysis. MS, CM, and AC contributed to the writing of the manuscript.
Funding
This work was primarily funded by the NIH grants R01AA012277 and R01AA10079 and a Wallace Research Foundation grant to MS, and the Gertrude Gaston Occupational Therapy Fund. Additional support was provided by the NIH grants U54HD090256 and S10RR029358.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
References
1
Abi-DarghamA.XuX.ThompsonJ. L.GilR.KegelesL. S.UrbanN.et al (2012). Increased prefrontal cortical D(1) receptors in drug naive patients with schizophrenia: a PET study with [11C]NNC112.J. Psychopharmacol.26794–805. 10.1177/0269881111409265
2
AhnR. R.MillerL. J.MilbergerS.McIntoshD. N. (2004). Prevalence of parents’ perceptions of sensory processing disorders among kindergarten children.Am. J. Occup. Ther.58287–293. 10.5014/ajot.58.3.287
3
American Psychiatric Association (2013). Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 5th Edn. Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Publishing.
4
ArnstenA. F. T.WangM.PaspalasC. D. (2015). Dopamine’s actions in primate prefrontal cortex: challenges for treating cognitive disorders.Pharmacol. Rev.67681–696. 10.1124/pr.115.010512
5
ArnstenA. F. T.WangM. J.PaspalasC. D. (2012). Neuromodulation of thought: flexibilities and vulnerabilities in prefrontal cortical network synapses.Neuron76223–239. 10.1016/j.neuron.2012.08.038
6
AyresA. J. (1964). Tactile functions. Their relation to hyperactive and perceptual motor behavior.Am. J. Occup. Ther.186–11.
7
AyresA. J. (1969). Deficits in sensory integration in educationally handicapped children.J. Learn. Disabil.2160–168. 10.1177/002221946900200307
8
AyresA. J. (1972). Types of sensory integrative dysfunction among disabled learners.Am. J. Occup. Ther.2613–18.
9
AyresA. J.RobbinsJ. (1979). Sensory Integration and the Child.Los Angeles, CA: Western Psychological Services.
10
BaranekG. T.BerksonG. (1994). Tactile defensiveness in children with developmental disabilities: responsiveness and habituation.J. Autism Dev. Disord.24457–471. 10.1007/bf02172128
11
Bar-ShalitaT.VatineJ.-J.ParushS. (2008). Sensory modulation disorder: a risk factor for participation in daily life activities.Dev. Med. Child Neurol.50932–937. 10.1111/j.1469-8749.2008.03095.x
12
BeaulieuJ.-M.GainetdinovR. R. (2011). The physiology, signaling, and pharmacology of dopamine receptors.Pharmacol. Rev.63182–217. 10.1124/pr.110.002642
13
BecerraL.BorsookD. (2008). Signal valence in the nucleus accumbens to pain onset and offset.Eur. J. Pain12866–869. 10.1016/j.ejpain.2007.12.007
14
Ben-SassonA.CarterA. S.Briggs-GowanM. J. (2009). Sensory over-responsivity in elementary school: prevalence and social-emotional correlates.J. Abnorm. Child Psychol.37705–716. 10.1007/s10802-008-9295-8
15
Ben-SassonA.SotoT. W.Martinez-PedrazaF.CarterA. S. (2013). Early sensory over-responsivity in toddlers with autism spectrum disorders as a predictor of family impairment and parenting stress.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry54846–853. 10.1111/jcpp.12035
16
BerridgeK. C.KringelbachM. L. (2008). Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals.Psychopharmacology199457–480. 10.1007/s00213-008-1099-6
17
BurgessP. W. (2011). Frontopolar cortex: constraints for theorizing.Trends Cogn. Sci.15:242;authorreply243. 10.1016/j.tics.2011.04.006
18
CampbellA. D.KohlR. R.McBrideW. J. (1996). Serotonin-3 receptor and ethanol-stimulated somatodendritic dopamine release.Alcohol13569–574. 10.1016/s0741-8329(96)00069-9
19
CarterA. S.Ben-SassonA.Briggs-GowanM. J. (2011). Sensory over-responsivity, psychopathology, and family impairment in school-aged children.J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry501210–1219. 10.1016/j.jaac.2011.09.010
20
CascioC. J.MooreD.McGloneF. (2019). Social touch and human development.Dev. Cogn. Neurosci.355–11. 10.1016/j.dcn.2018.04.009
21
CaseyB. J. (2001). “Disruption of inhibitory control in developmental disorders: a mechanistic model of implicated fronto-striatal circuitry,” in Mechanisms of Cognitive Development: Behavioral and Neural Perspectives, edsMcClellandJ. L.SieglerR. S. (Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum), 327–349.
22
CaseyB. J.JonesR. M. (2010). Neurobiology of the adolescent brain and behavior: implications for substance use disorders.J. Am. Acad. Child Adolesc. Psychiatry491189–1201. 10.1016/j.jaac.2010.08.017
23
CaseyB. J.JonesR. M.HareT. A. (2008). The adolescent brain.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1124111–126. 10.1196/annals.1440.010
24
CassadayH. J.NelsonA. J. D.PezzeM. A. (2014). From attention to memory along the dorsal-ventral axis of the medial prefrontal cortex: some methodological considerations.Front. Syst. Neurosci.8:160. 10.3389/fnsys.2014.00160
25
CervenkaS. (2019). PET radioligands for the dopamine D1-receptor: application in psychiatric disorders.Neurosci. Lett.69126–34. 10.1016/j.neulet.2018.03.007
26
ChampagneF. A.ChretienP.StevensonC. W.ZhangT. Y.GrattonA.MeaneyM. J. (2004). Variations in nucleus accumbens dopamine associated with individual differences in maternal behavior in the rat.J. Neurosci.244113–4123. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.5322-03.2004
27
ChangY.-S.GratiotM.OwenJ. P.Brandes-AitkenA.DesaiS. S.HillS. S.et al (2016). White matter microstructure is associated with auditory and tactile processing in children with and without sensory processing disorder.Front. Neuroanat.9:169. 10.3389/fnana.2015.00169
28
ChangY.-S.OwenJ. P.DesaiS. S.HillS. S.ArnettA. B.HarrisJ.et al (2014). Autism and sensory processing disorders: shared white matter disruption in sensory pathways but divergent connectivity in social-emotional pathways.PLoS One9:e103038. 10.1371/journal.pone.0103038
29
ConverseA. K.MooreC. F.HoldenJ. E.AhlersE. O.MoiranoJ. M.LarsonJ. A.et al (2014). Moderate-level prenatal alcohol exposure induces sex differences in dopamine d1 receptor binding in adult rhesus monkeys.Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res.382934–2943. 10.1111/acer.12575
30
ConverseA. K.MooreC. F.MoiranoJ. M.AhlersE. O.LarsonJ. A.EngleJ. W.et al (2013). Prenatal stress induces increased striatal dopamine transporter binding in adult nonhuman primates.Biol. Psychiatry74502–510. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.04.023
31
CooperS. J. (1975). Anaesthetisation of prefrontal cortex and response to noxious stimulation.Nature254439–440. 10.1038/254439a0
32
DalleyJ. W.CardinalR. N.RobbinsT. W. (2004). Prefrontal executive and cognitive functions in rodents: neural and neurochemical substrates.Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.28771–784. 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2004.09.006
33
DamasioA. (2003). Feelings of emotion and the self.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1001253–261.
34
DamasioA. R. (1996). The somatic marker hypothesis and the possible functions of the prefrontal cortex.Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci.3511413–1420. 10.1098/rstb.1996.0125
35
DarnaM.BeckmannJ. S.GipsonC. D.BardoM. T.DwoskinL. P. (2015). Effect of environmental enrichment on dopamine and serotonin transporters and glutamate neurotransmission in medial prefrontal and orbitofrontal cortex.Brain Res.1599115–125. 10.1016/j.brainres.2014.12.034
36
DaviesP. L.GavinW. J. (2007). Validating the diagnosis of sensory processing disorders using EEG technology.Am. J. Occup. Ther.61176–189. 10.5014/ajot.61.2.176
37
DeJesusO. T.Van MoffaertG. J.FriedmanA. M. (1987). Synthesis of [11C]SCH 23390 for dopamine D1 receptor studies.Int J. Rad. Appl. Instrum. A38345–348. 10.1016/0883-2889(87)90022-0
38
Del ArcoA.SegoviaG.CanalesJ. J.GarridoP.de BlasM.Garcia-VerdugoJ. M.et al (2007). Environmental enrichment reduces the function of D1 dopamine receptors in the prefrontal cortex of the rat.J. Neural Transm.11443–48. 10.1007/s00702-006-0565-8
39
Di FilippoM.PicconiB.TantucciM.GhiglieriV.BagettaV.SgobioC.et al (2009). Short-term and long-term plasticity at corticostriatal synapses: implications for learning and memory.Behav. Brain Res.199108–118. 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.09.025
40
EilamD.ClementsK. V.SzechtmanH. (1991). Differential effects of D1 and D2 dopamine agonists on stereotyped locomotion in rats.Behav. Brain Res.45117–124. 10.1016/s0166-4328(05)80077-4
41
EilamD.TalangbayanH.CanaranG.SzechtmanH. (1992). Dopaminergic control of locomotion, mouthing, snout contact, and grooming: opposing roles of D1 and D2 receptors.Psychopharmacology106447–454. 10.1007/bf02244813
42
EllenbroekB. A.BuddeS.CoolsA. R. (1996). Prepulse inhibition and latent inhibition: the role of dopamine in the medial prefrontal cortex.Neuroscience75535–542. 10.1016/0306-4522(96)00307-7
43
EllingsenD.-M.LeknesS.LosethG.WessbergJ.OlaussonH. (2015). The neurobiology shaping affective touch: expectation, motivation, and meaning in the multisensory context.Front. Psychol.6:1986. 10.3389/fpsyg.2015.01986
44
Fernandez-TeruelA.Gimenez-LlortL.EscorihuelaR. M.GilL.AguilarR.SteimerT.et al (2002). Early-life handling stimulation and environmental enrichment: are some of their effects mediated by similar neural mechanisms?Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.73233–245. 10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00787-6
45
FieldT.Hernandez-ReifM.DiegoM.SchanbergS.KuhnC. (2005). Cortisol decreases and serotonin and dopamine increase following massage therapy.Int. J. Neurosci.1151397–1413. 10.1080/00207450590956459
46
FordC. P. (2014). The role of D2-autoreceptors in regulating dopamine neuron activity and transmission.Neuroscience28213–22. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2014.01.025
47
FrancisT. C.ChandraR.FriendD. M.FinkelE.DayritG.MirandaJ.et al (2015). Nucleus accumbens medium spiny neuron subtypes mediate depression-related outcomes to social defeat stress.Biol. Psychiatry77212–222. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.07.021
48
FusterJ. M. (2009). Cortex and memory: emergence of a new paradigm.J. Cogn. Neurosci.212047–2072. 10.1162/jocn.2009.21280
49
GalaniR.BerthelM.-C.LazarusC.MajchrzakM.BarbelivienA.KelcheC.et al (2007). The behavioral effects of enriched housing are not altered by serotonin depletion but enrichment alters hippocampal neurochemistry.Neurobiol. Learn. Mem.881–10. 10.1016/j.nlm.2007.03.009
50
GillK. E.BeveridgeT. J. R.SmithH. R.PorrinoL. J. (2013). The effects of rearing environment and chronic methylphenidate administration on behavior and dopamine receptors in adolescent rats.Brain Res.152767–78. 10.1016/j.brainres.2013.06.021
51
Goldman-RakicP. S. (1995). Cellular basis of working memory. [Review] [64 refs].Neuron14477–485. 10.1016/0896-6273(95)90304-6
52
Goldman-RakicP. S.CastnerS. A.SvenssonT. H.SieverL. J.WilliamsG. V. (2004). Targeting the dopamine D1 receptor in schizophrenia: insights for cognitive dysfunction.Psychopharmacology1743–16. 10.1007/s00213-004-1793-y
53
GourleyL.WindC.HenningerE. M.ChinitzS. (2013). Sensory processing difficulties, behavioral problems, and parental stress in a clinical population of young children.J. Child Fam. Stud.22912–921. 10.1007/s10826-012-9650-9
54
GourleyS. L.ZimmermannK. S.AllenA. G.TaylorJ. R. (2016). The medial orbitofrontal cortex regulates sensitivity to outcome value.J. Neurosci.364600–4613. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4253-15.2016
55
GovindaiahG.WangY.CoxC. L. (2010). Dopamine enhances the excitability of somatosensory thalamocortical neurons.Neuroscience170981–991. 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.08.043
56
GrahamF. K. (1975). Presidential address, 1974. The more or less startling effects of weak prestimulation.Psychophysiology12238–248. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.1975.tb01284.x
57
GranonS.PassettiF.ThomasK. L.DalleyJ. W.EverittB. J.RobbinsT. W. (2000). Enhanced and impaired attentional performance after infusion of D1 dopaminergic receptor agents into rat prefrontal cortex.J. Neurosci.201208–1215. 10.1523/jneurosci.20-03-01208.2000
58
GreenT. A.AlibhaiI. N.RoybalC. N.WinstanleyC. A.TheobaldD. E. H.BirnbaumS. G.et al (2010). Environmental enrichment produces a behavioral phenotype mediated by low cyclic adenosine monophosphate response element binding (CREB) activity in the nucleus accumbens.Biol. Psychiatry6728–35. 10.1016/j.biopsych.2009.06.022
59
GrupeD. W.NitschkeJ. B. (2013). Uncertainty and anticipation in anxiety: an integrated neurobiological and psychological perspective.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.14488–501. 10.1038/nrn3524
60
GunaydinL. A.GrosenickL.FinkelsteinJ. C.KauvarI. V.FennoL. E.AdhikariA.et al (2014). Natural neural projection dynamics underlying social behavior.Cell1571535–1551. 10.1016/j.cell.2014.05.017
61
HallH.SedvallG.MagnussonO.KoppJ.HalldinC.FardeL. (1994). Distribution of D1- and D2-dopamine receptors, and dopamine and its metabolites in the human brain.Neuropsychopharmacology11245–256. 10.1038/sj.npp.1380111
62
HallerM.CaseJ.CroneN. E.ChangE. F.King-StephensD.LaxerK. D.et al (2018). Persistent neuronal activity in human prefrontal cortex links perception and action.Nat. Hum. Behav.280–91. 10.1038/s41562-017-0267-2
63
HanX.JingM.-Y.ZhaoT.-Y.WuN.SongR.LiJ. (2017). Role of dopamine projections from ventral tegmental area to nucleus accumbens and medial prefrontal cortex in reinforcement behaviors assessed using optogenetic manipulation.Metab. Brain Dis.321491–1502. 10.1007/s11011-017-0023-3
64
HaratiH.BarbelivienA.HerbeauxK.MullerM.-A.EngelnM.KelcheC.et al (2013). Lifelong environmental enrichment in rats: impact on emotional behavior, spatial memory vividness, and cholinergic neurons over the lifespan.Age351027–1043. 10.1007/s11357-012-9424-8
65
HardyS. G. (1985). Analgesia elicited by prefrontal stimulation.Brain Res.339281–284. 10.1016/0006-8993(85)90093-9
66
HarlowH. F.HarlowM. K. (1962). The effect of rearing conditions on behavior.Bull. Menninger Clin.26213–224.
67
HertensteinM. J.VerkampJ. M.KerestesA. M.HolmesR. M. (2006). The communicative functions of touch in humans, nonhuman primates, and rats: a review and synthesis of the empirical research.Genet., Soc. Gen. Psychol. Monogr.1325–94. 10.3200/mono.132.1.5-94
68
InnisR. B.CunninghamV. J.DelforgeJ.FujitaM.GieddeA.GunnR. N.et al (2007). Consensus nomenclature for in vivo imaging of reversibly binding radioligands.J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab.271533–1539. 10.1038/sj.jcbfm.9600493
69
IversenS. D.MishkinM. (1970). Perseverative interference in monkeys following selective lesions of the inferior prefrontal convexity.Exp. Brain Res.11376–386.
70
IzumaK.SaitoD. N.SadatoN. (2008). Processing of social and monetary rewards in the human striatum.Neuron58284–294. 10.1016/j.neuron.2008.03.020
71
JenkinsonM.BannisterP.BradyM.SmithS. (2002). Improved optimization for the robust and accurate linear registration and motion correction of brain images.Neuroimage17825–841. 10.1016/s1053-8119(02)91132-8
72
KebabianJ. W.CalneD. B. (1979). Multiple receptors for dopamine.Nature27793–96.
73
KimM.-S.YuJ. H.KimC. H.ChoiJ. Y.SeoJ. H.LeeM.-Y.et al (2016). Environmental enrichment enhances synaptic plasticity by internalization of striatal dopamine transporters.J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab.362122–2133. 10.1177/0271678X15613525
74
KisleyM. A.NoeckerT. L.GuintherP. M. (2004). Comparison of sensory gating to mismatch negativity and self-reported perceptual phenomena in healthy adults.Psychophysiology41604–612. 10.1111/j.1469-8986.2004.00191.x
75
KochM.BubserM. (1994). Deficient sensorimotor gating after 6-hydroxydopamine lesion of the rat medial prefrontal cortex is reversed by haloperidol.Eur. J. Neurosci.61837–1845. 10.1111/j.1460-9568.1994.tb00576.x
76
KoobG. F.VolkowN. D. (2010). Neurocircuitry of addiction.Neuropsychopharmacology35217–238. 10.1038/npp.2009.110
77
KosakaJ.TakahashiH.ItoH.TakanoA.FujimuraY.MatsumotoR.et al (2010). Decreased binding of [11C]NNC112 and [11C]SCH23390 in patients with chronic schizophrenia.Life Sci.86814–818. 10.1016/j.lfs.2010.03.018
78
LacroixL.SpinelliS.HeidbrederC. A.FeldonJ. (2000). Differential role of the medial and lateral prefrontal cortices in fear and anxiety.Behav. Neurosci.1141119–1130. 10.1037/0735-7044.114.6.1119
79
LeeM.MandersT. R.EberleS. E.SuC.D’amourJ.YangR.et al (2015). Activation of corticostriatal circuitry relieves chronic neuropathic pain.J. Neurosci.355247–5259. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3494-14.2015
80
LoganJ.FowlerJ. S.VolkowN. D.WangG. J.DingY. S.AlexoffD. L. (1996). Distribution volume ratios without blood sampling from graphical analysis of PET data.J. Cereb. Blood Flow Metab.16834–840. 10.1097/00004647-199609000-00008
81
MaillouxZ.MulliganS.RoleyS. S.BlancheE.CermakS.ColemanG. G.et al (2011). Verification and clarification of patterns of sensory integrative dysfunction.Am. J. Occup. Ther.65143–151. 10.5014/ajot.2011.000752
82
MangeotS. D.MillerL. J.McIntoshD. N.McGrath-ClarkeJ.SimonJ.HagermanR. J.et al (2001). Sensory modulation dysfunction in children with attention-deficit-hyperactivity disorder.Dev. Med. Child Neurol.43399–406.
83
MartinezE.LinH. H.ZhouH.DaleJ.LiuK.WangJ. (2017). Corticostriatal regulation of acute pain.Front. Cell. Neurosci.11:146. 10.3389/fncel.2017.00146
84
MaruyamaK.ShimojuR.OhkuboM.MaruyamaH.KurosawaM. (2012). Tactile skin stimulation increases dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens in rats.J. Physiol. Sci.62259–266. 10.1007/s12576-012-0205-z
85
McAlonanK.BrownV. J. (2003). Orbital prefrontal cortex mediates reversal learning and not attentional set shifting in the rat.Behav. Brain Res.14697–103. 10.1016/j.bbr.2003.09.019
86
MillerL. J.McIntoshD. N.McGrathJ.ShyuV.LampeM.TaylorA. K.et al (1999). Electrodermal responses to sensory stimuli in individuals with fragile X syndrome: a preliminary report.Am. J. Med. Genet.83268–279. 10.1002/(sici)1096-8628(19990402)83:4<268::aid-ajmg7>3.3.co;2-b
87
MillerL. J.NielsenD. M.SchoenS. A. (2012). Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder and sensory modulation disorder: a comparison of behavior and physiology.Res. Dev. Disabil.33804–818. 10.1016/j.ridd.2011.12.005
88
MillerL. J.NielsenD. M.SchoenS. A.Brett-GreenB. A. (2009). Perspectives on sensory processing disorder: a call for translational research.Front. Integr. Neurosci.3:22. 10.3389/neuro.07.022.2009
89
MillerL. J.SchoenS. A.MulliganS.SullivanJ. (2017). Identification of sensory processing and integration symptom clusters: a preliminary study.Occup. Ther. Int.2017:2876080. 10.1155/2017/2876080
90
MoiranoJ. M.BezginG. Y.AhlersE. O.KotterR.ConverseA. K. (2018). Rhesus macaque brain atlas regions aligned to an MRI template.Neuroinformatics17295–306. 10.1007/s12021-018-9400-2
91
MontaguA. (1984). The skin, touch, and human development.Clin. Dermatol.217–26. 10.1016/0738-081x(84)90043-9
92
MuirD. W. (2002). Adult communications with infants through touch: the forgotten sense.Hum. Dev.4595–99. 10.1159/000048155
93
MukherjeeJ.YangZ. Y.DasM. K.BrownT. (1995). Fluorinated benzamide neuroleptics–III. Development of (S)-N-[(1-allyl-2-pyrrolidinyl)methyl]-5-(3-[18F]fluoropropyl)-2, 3-dimethoxybenzamide as an improved dopamine D-2 receptor tracer.Nucl. Med. Biol.22283–296. 10.1016/0969-8051(94)00117-3
94
MuraliD.BarnhartT. E.VandeheyN. T.ChristianB. T.NicklesR. J.ConverseA. K.DejesusO. T. (2013). An efficient synthesis of dopamine transporter tracer [(18)F]FECNT.Appl. Radiat. Isot.72128–132. 10.1016/j.apradiso.2012.10.010
95
NakamuraT.SatoA.KitsukawaT.MomiyamaT.YamamoriT.SasaokaT. (2014). Distinct motor impairments of dopamine D1 and D2 receptor knockout mice revealed by three types of motor behavior.Front. Integr. Neurosci.8:56. 10.3389/fnint.2014.00056
96
NorthoffG.HeinzelA. (2006). First-person neuroscience: a new methodological approach for linking mental and neuronal states.Philos. Ethics Humanit. Med.1:E3. 10.1186/1747-5341-1-3
97
NumanM.SheehanT. P. (1997). Neuroanatomical circuitry for mammalian maternal behavior.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.807101–125. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1997.tb51915.x
98
OwenJ. P.MarcoE. J.DesaiS.FourieE.HarrisJ.HillS. S.MukherjeeP. (2013). Abnormal white matter microstructure in children with sensory processing disorders.NeuroImage Clin.2844–853. 10.1016/j.nicl.2013.06.009
99
PaineT. A.SlippL. E.CarlezonW. A. J. (2011). Schizophrenia-like attentional deficits following blockade of prefrontal cortex GABAA receptors.Neuropsychopharmacology361703–1713. 10.1038/npp.2011.51
100
PartridgeJ. G.TangK. C.LovingerD. M. (2000). Regional and postnatal heterogeneity of activity-dependent long-term changes in synaptic efficacy in the dorsal striatum.J. Neurophysiol.841422–1429. 10.1152/jn.2000.84.3.1422
101
PezzeM.McGarrityS.MasonR.FoneK. C.BastT. (2014). Too little and too much: hypoactivation and disinhibition of medial prefrontal cortex cause attentional deficits.J. Neurosci.347931–7946. 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.3450-13.2014
102
Plaven-SigrayP.HedmanE.VictorssonP.MathesonG. J.ForsbergA.DjurfeldtD. R.CervenkaS. (2017). Extrastriatal dopamine D2-receptor availability in social anxiety disorder.Eur. Neuropsychopharmacol.27462–469. 10.1016/j.euroneuro.2017.03.007
103
RagozzinoM. E. (2007). The contribution of the medial prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, and dorsomedial striatum to behavioral flexibility.Ann. N. Y. Acad. Sci.1121355–375. 10.1196/annals.1401.013
104
ReynoldsS.LaneS. J. (2008). Diagnostic validity of sensory over-responsivity: a review of the literature and case reports.J. Autism Dev. Disord.38516–529. 10.1007/s10803-007-0418-9
105
ReynoldsS.LaneS. J.RichardsL. (2010). Using animal models of enriched environments to inform research on sensory integration intervention for the rehabilitation of neurodevelopmental disorders.J. Neurodev. Disord.2120–132. 10.1007/s11689-010-9053-4
106
RobinsonD. L.HeienM. L. A. V.WightmanR. M. (2002). Frequency of dopamine concentration transients increases in dorsal and ventral striatum of male rats during introduction of conspecifics.J. Neurosci.2210477–10486. 10.1523/jneurosci.22-23-10477.2002
107
RobisonL. S.SwensonS.HamiltonJ.ThanosP. K. (2018). Exercise reduces dopamine D1R and increases D2R in rats: implications for addiction.Med. Sci. Sports Exerc.501596–1602. 10.1249/MSS.0000000000001627
108
RussoS. J.NestlerE. J. (2013). The brain reward circuitry in mood disorders.Nat. Rev. Neurosci.14609–625. 10.1038/nrn3381
109
SchaafR. C.BenevidesT.BlancheE. I.Brett-GreenB. A.BurkeJ. P.CohnE. S.SchoenS. A. (2010). Parasympathetic functions in children with sensory processing disorder.Front. Integr. Neurosci.4:4. 10.3389/fnint.2010.00004
110
SchaafR. C.DumontR. L.ArbesmanM.May-BensonT. A. (2018). Efficacy of occupational therapy using ayres sensory integration((R)): a systematic review.Am. J. Occup. Ther.72:7201190010p1-7201190010p10. 10.5014/ajot.2018.028431
111
ScheggiS.De MontisM. G.GambaranaC. (2018). DARPP-32 in the orchestration of responses to positive natural stimuli.J. Neurochem.147439–453. 10.1111/jnc.14558
112
SchneiderM. L.MooreC. F.AdkinsM.BarrC. S.LarsonJ. A.ReschL. M.RobertsA. (2017). Sensory processing in rhesus monkeys: developmental continuity, prenatal treatment, and genetic influences.Child Dev.88183–197. 10.1111/cdev.12572
113
SchneiderM. L.MooreC. F.BeckerE. F. (2001). Timing of moderate alcohol exposure during pregnancy and neonatal outcome in rhesus monkeys (Macaca mulatta).Alcohol. Clin. Exp. Res.251238–1245. 10.1097/00000374-200108000-00021
114
SchneiderM. L.MooreC. F.DeJesusO. T.ConverseA. K. (2008a). Prenatal Stress Influences on Neurobehavior, Stress Reactivity, and Dopaminergic Function in Rhesus Macaques. in Primate Models of Children’s Health and Developmental DisabilitiesedsBorBacherT. M.SackettG. P.GrantK. S. (New York, NYAcademic Press)
115
SchneiderM. L.MooreC. F.GajewskiL. L.LarsonJ. A.RobertsA. D.ConverseA. K.DejesusO. T. (2008b). Sensory processing disorder in a primate model: evidence from a longitudinal study of prenatal alcohol and prenatal stress effects.Child Dev.79100–11310.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01113.x
116
SchneiderM. L.MooreC. F.LarsonJ. A.ThiedeA. J.ConverseA. K. (2009). Relationship of stress responsivity, serotonin and dopamine function, and alcohol consumption in a prospective longitudinal primate study [abstract 211] in Proceedigs of the Research Society on Alcoholism Annual Meeting, San Diego, CA.
117
SchneiderM. L.RoughtonE. C.LubachG. R. (1997). Moderate alcohol consumption and psychological stress during pregnancy induce attention and neuromotor impairments in primate infants.Child Dev.68747–759. 10.1111/j.1467-8624.1997.tb01959.x
118
SchoenS. A.MillerL. J.Brett-GreenB. A.NielsenD. M. (2009). Physiological and behavioral differences in sensory processing: a comparison of children with autism spectrum disorder and sensory modulation disorder.Front. Integr. Neurosci.3:29. 10.3389/neuro.07.029.2009
119
SchoenbaumG.NugentS. L.SaddorisM. P.SetlowB. (2002). Orbitofrontal lesions in rats impair reversal but not acquisition of go, no-go odor discriminations.Neuroreport13885–890. 10.1097/00001756-200205070-00030
120
SeamansJ. K.FlorescoS. B.PhillipsA. G. (1998). D1 receptor modulation of hippocampal-prefrontal cortical circuits integrating spatial memory with executive functions in the rat.J. Neurosci.181613–1621. 10.1523/jneurosci.18-04-01613.1998
121
SpreckelmeyerK. N.KrachS.KohlsG.RademacherL.IrmakA.KonradK.GrunderG. (2009). Anticipation of monetary and social reward differently activates mesolimbic brain structures in men and women.Soc. Cogn. Affect. Neurosci.4158–165. 10.1093/scan/nsn051
122
StalnakerT. A.CoochN. K.SchoenbaumG. (2015). What the orbitofrontal cortex does not do.Nat. Neurosci.18620–627. 10.1038/nn.3982
123
SuomiS. J.HarlowH. F.McKinneyW. T. J. (1972). Monkey psychiatrists.Am. J. Psychiatry128927–932. 10.1176/ajp.128.8.927
124
SwerdlowN. R.GeyerM. A.BraffD. L. (2001). Neural circuit regulation of prepulse inhibition of startle in the rat: current knowledge and future challenges.Psychopharmacology156194–215. 10.1007/s002130100799
125
TaiY. C.ChatziioannouA.SiegelS.YoungJ.NewportD.GobleR. N.et al (2001). Performance evaluation of the microPET P4: a PET system dedicated to animal imaging.Phys. Med. Biol.461845–1862. 10.1088/0031-9155/46/7/308
126
TaiY. C.RuangmaA.RowlandD.SiegelS.NewportD. F.ChowP. L.et al (2005). Performance evaluation of the microPET focus: a third-generation microPET scanner dedicated to animal imaging.J. Nucl. Med.46455–463.
127
TangS. J.ReisG.KangH.GingrasA.-C.SonenbergN.SchumanE. M. (2002). A rapamycin-sensitive signaling pathway contributes to long-term synaptic plasticity in the hippocampus.Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A99467–472. 10.1073/pnas.012605299
128
ThompsonW. R.GrusecJ. (1970). Studies of early experience. In Carmichael’s Manual of Child Psychology3rd Edn, ed.MussenP. (New York, NY: Wiley and Sons) 565–654.
129
TothA.PetykoZ.GalosiR.SzaboI.KaradiK.FeldmannA.LenardL. (2017). Neuronal coding of auditory sensorimotor gating in medial prefrontal cortex.Behav. Brain Res.326200–208. 10.1016/j.bbr.2017.03.004
130
TrezzaV.CampolongoP.VanderschurenL. J. M. J. (2011). Evaluating the rewarding nature of social interactions in laboratory animals.Dev. Cogn. Neurosci.1444–458. 10.1016/j.dcn.2011.05.007
131
VijayraghavanS.WangM.BirnbaumS. G.WilliamsG. V.ArnstenA. F. T. (2007). Inverted-U dopamine D1 receptor actions on prefrontal neurons engaged in working memory.Nat. Neurosci.10376–384. 10.1038/nn1846
132
VolkowN. D.FowlerJ. S.WangG.DingY.GatleyS. J. (2002). Mechanism of action of methylphenidate: insights from PET imaging studies.J. Atten. Disord.6 (Suppl. 1), S31–S43.
133
WilbargerJ.GunnarM.SchneiderM.PollakS. (2010). Sensory processing in internationally adopted, post-institutionalized children.J. Child Psychol. Psychiatry511105–1114. 10.1111/j.1469-7610.2010.02255.x
134
WilliamsG. V.Goldman-RakicP. S. (1995). Modulation of memory fields by dopamine D1 receptors in prefrontal cortex.Nature376572–575. 10.1038/376572a0
135
WilliamsK. L.KirbyA. V.WatsonL. R.SiderisJ.BulluckJ.BaranekG. T. (2018). Sensory features as predictors of adaptive behaviors: a comparative longitudinal study of children with autism spectrum disorder and other developmental disabilities.Res. Dev. Disabil.81103–112. 10.1016/j.ridd.2018.07.002
136
ZhouH.MartinezE.LinH. H.YangR.DaleJ. A.LiuK.WangJ. (2018). Inhibition of the prefrontal projection to the nucleus accumbens enhances pain sensitivity and affect.Front. Cell. Neurosci.12:240. 10.3389/fncel.2018.00240
137
ZhouR.WangS.ZhuX. (2012). Prenatal ethanol exposure alters synaptic plasticity in the dorsolateral striatum of rat offspring via changing the reactivity of dopamine receptor.PLoS One7:e42443. 10.1371/journal.pone.0042443
Summary
Keywords
sensory processing disorder, rhesus macaque, dopamine, tactile responsivity, positron emission tomography
Citation
Schneider ML, Moore CF, Ahlers EO, Barnhart TE, Christian BT, DeJesus OT, Engle JW, Holden JE, Larson JA, Moirano JM, Murali D, Nickles RJ, Resch LM and Converse AK (2019) PET Measures of D1, D2, and DAT Binding Are Associated With Heightened Tactile Responsivity in Rhesus Macaques: Implications for Sensory Processing Disorder. Front. Integr. Neurosci. 13:29. doi: 10.3389/fnint.2019.00029
Received
31 January 2019
Accepted
02 July 2019
Published
17 July 2019
Volume
13 - 2019
Edited by
Jonathan T. Delafield-Butt, University of Strathclyde, United Kingdom
Reviewed by
Paul Geha, University of Rochester, United States; Briac Halbout, University of California, Irvine, United States
Updates
Copyright
© 2019 Schneider, Moore, Ahlers, Barnhart, Christian, DeJesus, Engle, Holden, Larson, Moirano, Murali, Nickles, Resch and Converse.
This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY). The use, distribution or reproduction in other forums is permitted, provided the original author(s) and the copyright owner(s) are credited and that the original publication in this journal is cited, in accordance with accepted academic practice. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.
*Correspondence: Alexander K. Converse, akconverse@wisc.edu
Disclaimer
All claims expressed in this article are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of their affiliated organizations, or those of the publisher, the editors and the reviewers. Any product that may be evaluated in this article or claim that may be made by its manufacturer is not guaranteed or endorsed by the publisher.