There is a gap between neuroscientific research and clinical practice in addiction—and some responsibility for that gap has been assigned to shortcomings of animal models (ref. [1]; also, more broadly, see ref. [2]). The gap has persisted despite improvements in animal modeling of addiction. For example, since the discovery that laboratory animals will self-administer most drugs that are liable to misuse by humans [3,4,5], investigators have increasingly recognized that core feature of addiction, such as compulsive or maladaptive use, cannot be modeled via passive, experimenter-controlled exposure to a drug [6]. The next step for animal models, now in progress, has been to place self-administration in the context of choices—choices guided by conflicting drives, probabilistic outcomes, or delayed outcomes [7]. These models have already advanced our understanding of addiction, demonstrating that compulsive drug use is based on biobehavioral processes shared across mammalian species. However, as the animal models become more refined, it is important to consider a fundamental species difference that stems from the uniquely human capacity to obtain information through language.

Perhaps the sheer obviousness of this species difference accounts for its not being mentioned, even indirectly, in recent reviews and commentaries about issues in animal modeling [8, 9]. We think, however, that it is critical to recognize the potential influence of verbally communicated information in humans when thinking about the possibilities and limitations of new animal models and their interpretation. Clear thinking about the difference between language-guided and languageless learning is critical for translational behavioral research.

Log in or create a free account to read this content

Gain free access to this article, as well as selected content from this journal and more on nature.com

Access through your institution

or

Sign in or create an account
Continue with Google
Continue with ORCiD