Hubbry Logo
SensitizationSensitizationMain
Open search
Sensitization
Community hub
Sensitization
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Contribute something
Sensitization
Sensitization
Sensitization
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

Sensitization is a non-associative learning process in which repeated administration of a stimulus results in the progressive amplification of a response.[1] Sensitization often is characterized by an enhancement of response to a whole class of stimuli in addition to the one that is repeated. For example, repetition of a painful stimulus may make one more responsive to a loud noise.

History

[edit]

Eric Kandel was one of the first to study the neural basis of sensitization, conducting experiments in the 1960s and 1970s on the gill withdrawal reflex of the seaslug Aplysia. Kandel and his colleagues first habituated the reflex, weakening the response by repeatedly touching the animal's siphon. They then paired noxious electrical stimulus to the tail with a touch to the siphon, causing the gill withdrawal response to reappear. After this sensitization, a light touch to the siphon alone produced a strong gill withdrawal response, and this sensitization effect lasted for several days. (After Squire and Kandel, 1999[2]). In 2000, Eric Kandel was awarded the Nobel Prize in Physiology or Medicine for his research in neuronal learning processes.

Neural substrates

[edit]
Addiction and dependence glossary[3][4][5]
  • addiction – a neuropsychological disorder characterized by a persistent and intense urge to use a drug or engage in a behavior that produces natural reward
  • addictive drug – psychoactive substances that with repeated use are associated with significantly higher rates of substance use disorders, due in large part to the drug's effect on brain reward systems
  • dependence – an adaptive state associated with a withdrawal syndrome upon cessation of repeated exposure to a stimulus (e.g., drug intake)
  • drug sensitization or reverse tolerance – the escalating effect of a drug resulting from repeated administration at a given dose
  • drug withdrawal – symptoms that occur upon cessation of repeated drug use
  • physical dependence – dependence that involves persistent physical–somatic withdrawal symptoms (e.g., delirium tremens and nausea)
  • psychological dependence – dependence that is characterised by emotional-motivational withdrawal symptoms (e.g., anhedonia and anxiety) that affect cognitive functioning.
  • reinforcing stimuli – stimuli that increase the probability of repeating behaviors paired with them
  • rewarding stimuli – stimuli that the brain interprets as intrinsically positive and desirable or as something to approach
  • sensitization – an amplified response to a stimulus resulting from repeated exposure to it
  • substance use disorder – a condition in which the use of substances leads to clinically and functionally significant impairment or distress
  • drug tolerance – the diminishing effect of a drug resulting from repeated administration at a given dose

The neural basis of behavioral sensitization is often not known, but it typically seems to result from a cellular receptor becoming more likely to respond to a stimulus. Several examples of neural sensitization include:

  • Electrical or chemical stimulation of the rat hippocampus causes strengthening of synaptic signals, a process known as long-term potentiation or LTP.[6] LTP of AMPA receptors is a potential mechanism underlying memory and learning in the brain.
  • In "kindling", repeated stimulation of hippocampal or amygdaloid neurons in the limbic system eventually leads to seizures in laboratory animals. After sensitization, very little stimulation may be required to produce seizures. Thus, kindling has been suggested as a model for temporal lobe epilepsy in humans, where stimulation of a repetitive type (flickering lights for instance) can cause epileptic seizures.[7] Often, people suffering from temporal lobe epilepsy report symptoms of negative effects such as anxiety and depression that might result from limbic dysfunction.[8]
  • In "central sensitization", nociceptive neurons in the dorsal horns of the spinal cord become sensitized by peripheral tissue damage or inflammation.[9] This type of sensitization has been suggested as a possible causal mechanism for chronic pain conditions. The changes of central sensitization occur after repeated trials to pain. Research from animals has consistently shown that when a trial is repeatedly exposed to a painful stimulus, the animal’s pain threshold will change and result in a stronger pain response. Researchers believe that there are parallels that can be drawn between these animal trials and persistent pain in people. For example, after a back surgery that removed a herniated disc from causing a pinched nerve, the patient may still continue to feel pain. Also, newborns who are circumcised without anesthesia have shown tendencies to react more greatly to future injections, vaccinations, and other similar procedures. The responses of these children are an increase in crying and a greater hemodynamic response (tachycardia and tachypnea).[10]
  • Drug sensitization occurs in drug addiction, and is defined as an increased effect of drug following repeated doses (the opposite of drug tolerance). Such sensitization involves changes in brain mesolimbic dopamine transmission, as well as a protein inside mesolimbic neurons called delta FosB. An associative process may contribute to addiction, for environmental stimuli associated with drug taking may increase craving. This process may increase the risk for relapse in addicts attempting to quit.[11]

Cross-sensitization

[edit]

Cross-sensitization is a phenomenon in which sensitization to a stimulus is generalized to a related stimulus, resulting in the amplification of a particular response to both the original stimulus and the related stimulus.[12][13] For example, cross-sensitization to the neural and behavioral effects of addictive drugs are well characterized, such as sensitization to the locomotor response of a stimulant resulting in cross-sensitization to the motor-activating effects of other stimulants. Similarly, reward sensitization to a particular addictive drug often results in reward cross-sensitization, which entails sensitization to the rewarding property of other addictive drugs in the same drug class or even certain natural rewards.

In animals, cross-sensitization has been established between the consumption of many different types of drugs of abuse – in line with the gateway drug theory – and also between sugar consumption and the self-administration of drugs of abuse.[14]

As a causal factor in pathology

[edit]

Sensitization has been implied as a causal or maintaining mechanism in a wide range of apparently unrelated pathologies including addiction, allergies, asthma, overactive bladder[15] and some medically unexplained syndromes such as fibromyalgia and multiple chemical sensitivity. Sensitization may also contribute to psychological disorders such as post-traumatic stress disorder, panic anxiety and mood disorders.[16][17][18]

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Sensitization

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
Sensitization is a multifaceted process observed across scientific disciplines, characterized by an increased or sensitivity to a stimulus, agent, or condition following initial or repeated exposure. In and , sensitization manifests as a non-associative form of learning where repeated presentation of a stimulus leads to heightened response strength, contrasting with 's decrease in reactivity; for instance, intermittent low doses of stimulants like can amplify locomotor activity over time. This phenomenon often arises from or , as seen in studies where intense stimuli, such as certain wavelengths of , elicit greater fixation in infants compared to milder ones. In and , chemical sensitization involves alterations in the —typically immunochemical changes—induced by exposure to a substance, recognition of that substance (or its derivatives) as an and triggering reactions at lower doses than in unsensitized individuals. Such responses, often mediated by IgE antibodies in , underlie conditions like allergic from agents such as salts, where sensitization rates can reach 95%, influenced by genetic and host factors. In , particularly , sensitization denotes the heat-induced of carbides at boundaries in austenitic stainless steels, depleting adjacent areas of and thereby reducing resistance, leading to intergranular attack. This occurs when alloys like AISI 304 are heated to 425–870°C, a critical concern in and long-term exposure scenarios such as nuclear applications. Across these domains, sensitization highlights adaptive or detrimental escalations in reactivity, with implications for health, behavior, and durability.

Definition and Basic Concepts

Core

Sensitization is a form of non-associative learning in which repeated or prolonged exposure to a stimulus results in the progressive amplification of the behavioral response, in contrast to the weakening observed in . This process typically involves a strong or that enhances the reaction to a subsequent weaker or related stimulus, without requiring any association between stimuli. Key characteristics of sensitization include stimulus-specific enhancement of the response, rapid onset following repeated exposures, and persistence even after the sensitizing stimulus is removed. Short-term sensitization can emerge within minutes through synaptic facilitation, while long-term forms last days or longer, reflecting enduring changes in neural excitability. These features make sensitization distinct from temporary states, as the amplified response remains targeted and durable. A classic example is the strengthening of the gill-withdrawal reflex in the Aplysia californica, where mild tactile stimulation of the elicits a more vigorous retraction following prior shocks to the tail. In vertebrates, repeated administration in induces behavioral sensitization, marked by heightened locomotor hyperactivity that persists for weeks after drug cessation. From an evolutionary perspective, sensitization serves as an adaptive mechanism for heightened alertness to potential threats in environments with recurring dangers, amplifying defensive responses to promote survival. Sensitization, as a form of non-associative learning, involves an increase in behavioral response to a stimulus following its repeated or intense presentation, distinct from several related neurobehavioral processes. One key distinction lies in its opposition to , another non-associative learning process where repeated exposure to a stimulus leads to a decrement in response strength over time. In contrast, sensitization amplifies the response to the same stimulus, reflecting opposing adaptive functions: habituation filters out irrelevant, predictable stimuli to conserve energy, while sensitization heightens to potentially significant or aversive events. Both processes are stimulus-specific and do not require or contingency, underscoring their shared non-associative nature but divergent outcomes. Sensitization also differs markedly from tolerance, particularly in pharmacological contexts where are involved. Tolerance refers to a progressive reduction in physiological or behavioral response to a upon repeated administration, often mediated by homeostatic adaptations in receptor systems or metabolic processes. Sensitization, conversely, manifests as an enhanced behavioral response to the same or stimulus, frequently observed in locomotor activity or reward-seeking behaviors, and is more closely tied to neural plasticity in reward and motivational circuits rather than compensatory downregulation. This behavioral amplification in sensitization can coexist with tolerance in different response domains, such as increased alongside diminished effects. Unlike associative forms of learning, such as , sensitization does not depend on the pairing of stimuli or the establishment of contingencies between events. In , a neutral stimulus gains eliciting power through repeated association with an unconditioned stimulus, forming predictive relationships that drive learned responses. Sensitization, by comparison, arises solely from the intrinsic properties of the stimulus itself—its intensity, duration, or repetition—without requiring any relational learning or temporal linkage to other stimuli, emphasizing its role as a basic, reflexive enhancement mechanism. Finally, sensitization should be differentiated from dishabituation, which involves a transient recovery of a habituated response triggered by a novel or strong stimulus. Dishabituation restores responsiveness temporarily without altering the underlying process, often serving as a mechanism to reorient to changed environmental conditions. In sensitization, however, the enhancement is more persistent and can occur independently of any prior habituation, leading to a sustained elevation in response magnitude that outlasts the stimulus presentation.

Historical Development

Early Observations

Early experimental observations of sensitization emerged in the study of simple reflexes in during the late 19th and early 20th centuries. George Romanes, in his 1881 work Animal Intelligence, provided anecdotal reports of reflexive behavioral responses in coelenterates such as sea anemones and medusae, laying groundwork for later empirical investigations into enhanced responsiveness. These early descriptions highlighted potential increases in reflex strength, though they lacked controlled experimentation. More systematic studies followed with H.S. Jennings' 1906 analysis in Behavior of the Lower Organisms, which documented enhanced avoidance reactions in protozoans like paramecia following strong or novel stimuli, distinguishing sensitization as an opposing process to where responses to weak repeated stimuli diminished. In the mid-20th century, models provided rigorous empirical evidence for sensitization as a distinct neural phenomenon. and colleagues in the and utilized the Aplysia californica to demonstrate how a noxious tail shock enhanced the siphon withdrawal reflex, a defensive behavior typically elicited by weak tactile stimulation. In a seminal 1973 study, repeated tail shocks over four days produced long-term sensitization, with the reflex amplitude increasing progressively and persisting for weeks, revealing heterosynaptic facilitation at sensory-motor synapses as the underlying mechanism. This work established Aplysia as a key model for dissecting sensitization at cellular and behavioral levels, showing that a single shock induced short-term enhancement, while spaced repetitions led to enduring changes. Initial mammalian studies in the extended these findings to systems, focusing on locomotor responses to psychostimulants. In , repeated administration of produced progressive augmentation of motor activity, termed locomotor sensitization, as reported by Segal and Mandell in 1974; rats showed heightened stereotyped behaviors and locomotion after chronic dosing, with effects persisting beyond treatment cessation. Similar patterns emerged with , where intermittent injections sensitized ambulatory activity in rats, distinguishing it from acute effects. These experiments underscored sensitization's role in drug-induced behavioral plasticity. Key methodological insights from these foundational studies emphasized repeated stimulus protocols to isolate sensitization from single-exposure responses. In invertebrate work, pairing weak test stimuli with spaced strong sensitizing shocks (e.g., every 30 minutes over sessions) revealed cumulative enhancement, unlike immediate single-shock effects that waned quickly. In mammalian paradigms, daily psychostimulant challenges over 7-10 days, measured via open-field locomotion tracking, differentiated progressive sensitization from tolerance or acute , establishing protocols still used to probe enduring neural adaptations.

Key Theoretical Advances

In the 1980s, and Corbit's , originally proposed in 1974, was extended to account for biphasic responses in drug effects, where initial hedonic activation (a-process) triggers compensatory opponent mechanisms (b-process) that can manifest as to motivational aspects alongside tolerance to euphoric effects. This integration highlighted how repeated drug exposure amplifies incentive-related responses through dynamic affective opposition, providing a foundational model for understanding addiction's motivational persistence. 's 1980 elaboration emphasized the theory's applicability to acquired motives like drug dependence, framing as an emergent property of these opposing dynamics rather than mere . A key milestone in the 1990s involved shifting focus from invertebrate models of sensitization, such as Eric Kandel's studies on gill-withdrawal reflex demonstrating presynaptic facilitation, to mammalian systems, which better captured complex behavioral adaptations in . This transition influenced seminal theories like Robinson and Berridge's incentive salience hypothesis (1993), which posited that arises from drug-induced sensitization of mesolimbic pathways, transforming neutral cues into powerfully "wanted" stimuli through attribution of incentive salience, independent of hedonic pleasure. The hypothesis reframed sensitization not as a simple response enhancement but as a neural hijacking of motivational circuits, explaining compulsive drug-seeking despite diminished enjoyment. Dual-process models emerged in the late 1990s, conceptualizing sensitization as involving rapid —driven by excitatory transmission, particularly —contrasted with slower homeostatic adaptations that regulate overall excitability. Wolf's framework specifically outlined how repeated psychostimulant exposure induces long-term potentiation-like changes in synapses within the and , facilitating the development of behavioral sensitization as a form of Hebbian plasticity, while homeostatic mechanisms prevent runaway excitation. This model underscored incentive sensitization's reliance on fast, local circuit modifications for amplifying drug cues' motivational pull, distinct from broader compensatory processes. In the 2000s, computational theories integrated sensitization into paradigms, portraying it as a mechanism that biases salience attribution toward cues without altering signals typically associated with temporal-difference learning. For instance, models like those by Zhang et al. (2009) incorporated a gain parameter to simulate sensitized responses amplifying cue-elicited "wanting" via actor-critic architectures, where mesolimbic escalates action selection for rewards independently of updated value estimates. These frameworks advanced understanding by quantifying how sensitization distorts motivational hierarchies, contributing to persistent craving in models.

Neurobiological Mechanisms

Neural Substrates

The neural substrates of sensitization are primarily localized within the mesolimbic dopamine system, where the (VTA) and (NAc) play central roles in mediating behavioral sensitization. neurons in the VTA project to the NAc, forming a key circuit that underlies enhanced locomotor and reward-seeking responses following repeated stimulant exposure. This pathway's involvement was established through early electrophysiological and studies in , highlighting its anatomical specificity for sensitization phenomena. Circuitry within these regions involves enhanced glutamatergic inputs to VTA neurons, which amplify excitatory drive and contribute to the persistent strengthening of responses. Stress or drug-induced sensitization potentiates these inputs, leading to increased synaptic efficacy onto cells. Additionally, the () modulates NAc plasticity by projecting afferents that influence morphology and synaptic remodeling in medium spiny neurons, thereby sustaining sensitized behaviors. Functional imaging studies provide evidence for these substrates in sensitized states. (PET) scans using [11C]raclopride have demonstrated regionally specific increases in release in the ventral , correlating with sensitized behavioral responses to in humans. Similarly, (fMRI) reveals altered activation in the and during reward processing after repeated psychostimulant exposure, including enhanced activity in the ventromedial caudate during reward anticipation. Invertebrate models offer simplified parallels for studying these substrates. In the sea slug Aplysia, sensitization of the gill-withdrawal occurs at sensory-motor synapses within the abdominal ganglion, where facilitating enhance transmitter release from sensory neurons onto motor neurons. This monosynaptic circuit serves as a foundational model for understanding circuit-level changes in sensitization across species.

Molecular Pathways

Sensitization involves (LTP)-like enhancements at excitatory synapses, particularly in the (NAc), where repeated exposure to psychostimulants strengthens synaptic efficacy through increased insertion of receptors into the postsynaptic membrane. This AMPA receptor trafficking is a key form of , driven by activity-dependent of receptor subunits like GluA1, which facilitates their movement from intracellular stores to the synapse, thereby amplifying glutamatergic transmission and contributing to the heightened behavioral responses observed in sensitization. Such changes mimic LTP mechanisms but persist over extended periods following , underscoring their role in enduring neuroadaptations. Central to these plasticity events are intracellular signaling cascades, notably the cAMP-protein kinase A (PKA) pathway, activated downstream of dopamine D1 receptor stimulation in the NAc. Upon D1 receptor engagement by released during drug exposure, adenylyl cyclase increases cAMP levels, which in turn activates PKA; this leads to of transcription factors such as CREB (cAMP response element-binding protein), promoting changes that sustain sensitization. A hallmark of this transcriptional regulation is the accumulation of ΔFosB, a stable isoform of the Fos family, which acts as a by inducing long-lasting alterations in target genes related to synaptic remodeling and reward sensitivity. Glutamate signaling via NMDA receptors plays a critical role in the induction phase, where calcium influx through NMDA channels triggers these cascades, initiating the molecular events that culminate in sensitized responses. The time course of these molecular pathways distinguishes acute from chronic phases of sensitization. In the acute phase, second messenger systems like cAMP and calcium transients rapidly modulate activity and receptor , enhancing immediate synaptic strength without structural alterations. Over chronic exposure, however, these signals drive structural remodeling, including dendritic spine growth and proliferation on medium spiny neurons in the NAc, which provides a physical basis for persistent synaptic potentiation and behavioral . This progression from transient biochemical changes to enduring morphological adaptations highlights the multifaceted nature of sensitization's molecular underpinnings.

Variants and Phenomena

Cross-Sensitization

Cross-sensitization is a form of behavioral sensitization in which repeated exposure to one stimulus enhances the response to a distinct, often unrelated stimulus, particularly evident in the locomotor and rewarding effects of psychostimulant drugs. In models, prior administration of induces heightened locomotor activity in response to challenge, demonstrating generalization across these psychostimulants. For example, in mice, d-amphetamine pretreatment enhanced the locomotor response to cocaine threefold, indicating shared neural mechanisms underlying the response amplification. Similarly, context-dependent cross-sensitization occurs when amphetamine pretreatment in a specific environment augments cocaine-induced locomotion upon subsequent testing in that same setting. The mechanisms of cross-sensitization involve overlapping release in the (NAc), a key structure in the mesolimbic reward pathway. Repeated psychostimulant exposure leads to persistent elevations in extracellular in the NAc, which non-specifically sensitizes reward circuits to subsequent activation by different drugs acting on similar systems. This plasticity is not limited to pharmacological agents; stress-induced sensitization shares these alterations, briefly overlapping with molecular pathways such as enhanced glutamate- interactions that amplify transmission in sensitized states. Behavioral evidence from the and highlights cross-sensitization between psychostimulants and stress, with repeated restraint stress potentiating amphetamine's locomotor effects in rats through augmented mesolimbic efflux. Early studies showed that intermittent amphetamine treatment cross-sensitized to the motor-activating properties of stressors like footshock, reflecting bidirectional enhancement in behavioral responsiveness. These findings established that sensitization develops via common neural adaptations, independent of the initial inducing stimulus. In the context of polydrug use, cross-sensitization increases vulnerability by priming shared reward circuits, leading to amplified responses when multiple substances are encountered sequentially. This process may contribute to the escalation of liability, as prior sensitization to one heightens the motivational impact of another, fostering patterns of combined substance consumption.

Context-Dependent Sensitization

Context-dependent sensitization describes the enhanced expression of behavioral sensitization to drugs of abuse when tested in environments previously associated with drug exposure, distinct from sensitization observed in novel or unpaired settings. In models, this is evident in assays measuring locomotor activity or , where repeated psychostimulant administration, such as or , leads to augmented locomotor responses specifically in the drug-paired context, like distinct chambers differentiated by visual or tactile cues. This phenomenon underscores how environmental contexts can amplify drug-induced behavioral changes without implying full associative learning. Evidence for context-dependent sensitization emerged prominently in the through studies on psychostimulant-induced locomotor effects. For example, research demonstrated that rats pretreated with exhibited significantly greater locomotor sensitization when challenged with the drug in the same environment used for pretreatment, compared to a context, indicating that contextual cues facilitate the manifestation of sensitized responses. Similar context-specific locomotor sensitization has been reported for , where responses were confined to drug-paired environments, supporting the robustness of this effect across related stimulants. The neural mechanisms involve key structures for context processing and memory retrieval, including the hippocampus and basolateral (BLA). The ventral hippocampus encodes contextual information and supports state-dependent retrieval, whereby sensitized behaviors are elicited more strongly when the internal physiological state aligns with that during exposure, as shown in studies blocking hippocampal receptors to disrupt morphine-induced context-specific sensitization. The BLA contributes by integrating contextual signals with -related neural adaptations, enabling environment-specific expression of sensitization through projections to reward circuits.

Clinical and Pathological Roles

Involvement in Addiction

Sensitization plays a central role in addiction through the incentive sensitization theory, which posits that repeated exposure to drugs of abuse induces long-lasting neuroadaptations in mesolimbic systems, amplifying the incentive salience or "wanting" attributed to drug-related cues and the drug itself, independent of changes in hedonic "liking" or pleasure. This theory, originally proposed by Robinson and Berridge in 1993, was refined in subsequent works during the to emphasize how sensitization transforms neutral stimuli into powerful motivators that drive compulsive drug-seeking, even after prolonged . The dissociation between heightened "wanting" and unaltered or diminished "liking" explains why addicts often report intense cravings despite reduced enjoyment from the drug. This framework has also been extended to other disorders beyond addiction, such as sexual dysfunctions like lifelong premature ejaculation, where dopaminergic hypersensitivity in the mesolimbic system amplifies motivational responses ("wanting") to sexual cues over hedonic pleasure ("liking"), leading to faster arousal, reduced ejaculatory control, and circuit remodeling that parallels addiction-like processes. Human evidence supports this model, demonstrating long-lasting sensitized responses in the ventral to cues that predict craving and vulnerability. (PET) studies using radioligands like [11C]raclopride have shown that exposure to - or amphetamine-associated cues elicits significant release in the and ventral of individuals with substance use disorders, with these responses persisting for months after cessation and correlating with self-reported craving intensity. For instance, in abstinent users, cue-induced elevations in the were greater than in controls and associated with higher risk during follow-up periods. These sensitized responses contribute to the high rates in treatment, estimated at 40-60% within the first year post-treatment, as chronic sensitization maintains cue-driven motivation despite efforts to achieve . Sensitization unfolds in stages that parallel the progression of : acute sensitization occurs during initial drug use, enhancing motivational responses and facilitating , while chronic sensitization develops over repeated exposure and persists into , fueling protracted craving and . In the initiation phase, drugs rapidly sensitize transmission, increasing the salience of cues and promoting escalation from recreational to habitual use. During , this chronic state renders individuals hypersensitive to environmental triggers, where even subtle reminders can reactivate sensitized pathways and precipitate . Translational research bridges animal models to human addiction, with rodent self-administration paradigms demonstrating how sensitization leads to escalated and compulsive drug intake that mirrors clinical patterns. In rats with extended access to cocaine self-administration, prolonged sessions produce sensitization of dopamine responses, resulting in a marked escalation of intake—up to several times baseline levels—and a shift to compulsive seeking despite adverse consequences, akin to the loss of control observed in human addicts. These models show that sensitized "wanting" drives progressive-ratio breakpoints higher, reflecting increased motivation that translates to human compulsive use trajectories.

Contribution to Other Disorders

Sensitization contributes to syndromes through central sensitization, a process involving amplified nociceptive signaling in the , independent of ongoing peripheral input. This mechanism was first evidenced in animal models where neurons exhibited expanded receptive fields and lowered activation thresholds following injury, leading to heightened pain hypersensitivity. In conditions like , central sensitization manifests as widespread pain, , and , where non-nociceptive stimuli evoke pain due to altered central processing. The concept has evolved into the 2017 International Association for the Study of Pain (IASP) classification of , which encompasses disorders such as and characterized by augmented pain perception without clear nociceptive or neuropathic drivers. In , sensitization of systems exacerbates positive symptoms like hallucinations and delusions, particularly through heightened responsiveness to stress or psychostimulants. Patients with first-episode show greater striatal release in response to challenge compared to healthy controls, mirroring sensitized states that amplify psychotic episodes. Stress-induced sensitization, involving cross-sensitization between environmental stressors and , further contributes to symptom worsening by enhancing mesolimbic hyperactivity. Postmortem studies reveal molecular evidence of presynaptic dysregulation in the , supporting hyperactive mesolimbic pathways as a substrate for this sensitization in . Sensitization also underlies hyperarousal in (PTSD), where fear sensitization leads to exaggerated responses to neutral or mild stimuli, contributing to persistent vigilance and reactivity. This non-associative form of learning amplifies affective behaviors following trauma, manifesting as heightened startle responses and emotional numbing in PTSD patients. In depression, alterations in reward processing disrupt motivational drive, where blunted mesolimbic signaling impairs "wanting" and contributes to , the inability to experience pleasure from incentives. Stress-induced dysfunction in these pathways reverses typical incentive-driven behaviors, perpetuating depressive symptoms through reduced anticipation of rewards. Incentive sensitization has also been implicated in lifelong premature ejaculation, a sexual dysfunction characterized by reduced ejaculatory control. In this context, hypersensitivity in the dopamine system to sexual cues enhances motivational "wanting" over hedonic "liking," leading to faster arousal and lower ejaculation thresholds through neural circuit remodeling in the mesolimbic pathway. This mechanism mirrors addiction by amplifying reactions to stimuli and reducing inhibitory control, as evidenced by neuroimaging studies showing heightened ventral striatal activity and faster reaction times to erotic cues in affected individuals. Therapeutic strategies targeting sensitization include antagonists like , which show promise in reversing sensitized states across these disorders in post-2010 clinical trials. In , low-dose infusions reduce central sensitization by inhibiting NMDA-mediated wind-up in spinal neurons, alleviating symptoms in and neuropathic conditions. For PTSD and depression, rapidly attenuates hyperarousal and anhedonic symptoms by modulating and dopaminergic pathways, with randomized trials demonstrating sustained symptom relief beyond traditional antidepressants; , a derivative, received FDA approval in 2019 for . As of 2025, ongoing research continues to explore 's efficacy for PTSD. These effects highlight 's potential to "reset" sensitized neural circuits, though further research is needed for applications.

References

  1. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5604613/
  2. http://web.sbu.edu/psychology/lavin/habituation%20and%20sensitization.htm
  3. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK234810/
  4. https://vtechworks.lib.vt.edu/items/88376dad-a4e5-4cb6-8898-f9f5037f1c09
  5. https://www.nrc.gov/docs/ML0322/ML032270023.pdf
  6. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4448621/
  7. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3769437/
  8. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.0600839103
  9. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.182.4116.1039
  10. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Animal_Intelligence_%28IA_AnimalIntelligence%29.pdf
  11. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1074742708001160
  12. https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/kandel-lecture.pdf
  13. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4857295/
  14. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0091305774900604
  15. https://people.whitman.edu/~herbrawt/classes/390/Solomon.pdf
  16. https://www.nature.com/articles/1395603
  17. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1980-26727-001
  18. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/terryrobinson-new/wp-content/uploads/sites/1108/2014/11/rb1993.pdf
  19. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/016501739390013P
  20. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0301008297000907
  21. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9560846/
  22. https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/685fa4c8f8dc8df3b0d53c1ab41c6e5f06c12222
  23. https://sites.lsa.umich.edu/m3lab/wp-content/uploads/sites/1376/2024/11/Computational_Models_of_Incentive-Sensitization_in.pdf
  24. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000588
  25. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5171207/
  26. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3082449/
  27. https://www.nature.com/articles/npp201632
  28. https://elifesciences.org/articles/15448
  29. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0896627305005222
  30. https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapsychiatry/fullarticle/209916
  31. https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0093955
  32. https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.11560
  33. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/4748675/
  34. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5396464/
  35. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0006291X08023784
  36. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8801442/
  37. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16219028/
  38. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.191352698
  39. https://www.cell.com/trends/pharmacological-sciences/fulltext/S0165-6147(99)01356-5
  40. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11681591/
  41. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/29/9/2876
  42. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5709273/
  43. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1665095/
  44. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/407604/
  45. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8995535/
  46. https://doi.org/10.1124/pr.109.001933
  47. https://doi.org/10.1037/0735-7044.110.6.1397
  48. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9201725/
  49. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/31/45/16279
  50. https://www.nature.com/articles/npp2010209
  51. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2607325/
  52. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-44914-w
  53. https://www.jneurosci.org/content/27/15/3998
  54. https://nida.nih.gov/publications/drugs-brains-behavior-science-addiction/treatment-recovery
  55. https://www.nature.com/articles/306686a0
  56. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20961685/
  57. https://journals.lww.com/pain/fulltext/2017/05000/nociplastic_pain__towards_an_understanding_of.14.aspx
  58. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41398-019-0681-5
  59. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4872435/
  60. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC9725030/
  61. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3972338/
  62. https://trialsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13063-021-05814-4
  63. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35181391/
  64. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-new-nasal-spray-medication-treatment-resistant-depression-available-only-certified
  65. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/10.1176/appi.ajp.2015.15040465
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
Contribute something
User Avatar
No comments yet.