The DOI matches its Crossref record, with a small difference in title or year; 80 of the 81 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Disruption of Reward Processing in Addiction: An Image-Based Meta-analysis of Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging Studies
Open accessAbstract
IMPORTANCE: Disrupted reward processing, mainly driven by striatal dysfunction, is a key characteristic of addictive behaviors. However, functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies have reported conflicting results, with both hypoactivations and hyperactivations during anticipation and outcome notification of monetary rewards in addiction. OBJECTIVE: To determine the nature and direction of reward-processing disruptions during anticipation and outcome notification of monetary rewards in individuals with addiction using image-based meta-analyses of fMRI studies. DATA SOURCES: Relevant publications were identified searching PubMed (inclusion until March 2015) using the following terms: reward, fMRI, substance use, cocaine, cannabis, opiates, alcohol, nicotine, smokers, gambling, gamblers, gaming, and gamers. Authors of included articles were contacted to obtain statistical fMRI maps. STUDY SELECTION: Inclusion criteria: reward task involving monetary reward anticipation and/or outcome; participants showing addictive behaviors; and healthy control group. Exclusion criteria: participants aged younger than 18 years; recreational substance use or gambling; participants at risk for addictive behaviors; and studies using the same patient data as other included studies. DATA EXTRACTION AND SYNTHESIS: Study procedures were conducted in accordance with the Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology guidelines. Using Seed-based d Mapping software, meta-analyses were performed using random-effect nonparametric statistics with group whole brain T-maps from individual studies as input. Analyses were performed across all addictions and for substance and gambling addictions separately. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Group differences (individuals with addiction vs control individuals) in reward-related brain activation during reward anticipation and outcome using fMRI (planned before data collection). RESULTS: Twenty-five studies were included in the meta-analysis, representing 643 individuals with addictive behaviors and 609 healthy control individuals. During reward anticipation, individuals with substance and gambling addictions showed decreased striatal activation compared with healthy control individuals. During reward outcome, individuals with substance addiction showed increased activation in the ventral striatum, whereas individuals with gambling addiction showed decreased activation in the dorsal striatum compared with healthy control individuals. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: Striatal hypoactivation in individuals with addiction during reward anticipation and in individuals with gambling addiction during reward outcome is in line with the reward-deficiency theory of addiction. However, the combination of hypoactivation during reward anticipation and hyperactivation during reward outcome in the striatum of individuals with substance addiction may be explained using learning-deficit theory.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Previous research highlights the important role of sensitivities towards addiction-related stimuli and activations in neural reward systems involving the ventral and dorsal striatum and other limbic structures in addictive behaviors (FauthBühler and Mann, 2017; Fauth-Bühler et al., 2017; Luijten et al., 2017; Palaus et al., 2017).”
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“Mainly driven by striatal dysfunction in the brain, disrupted reward processing is a key characteristic in multiple types of addiction [33].”
From Cannabis, cannabinoids and health: a review of evidence on risks and medical benefits (2025) · cites this paper as [33]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
Meta-analysis of Observational Studies in Epidemiology<SUBTITLE>A Proposal for Reporting</SUBTITLE>
Stroup, D. F. (2000) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.283.15.2008 · Cited by 20,623
Whiteford, H. A., Degenhardt, L., Rehm, J., Baxter, A. J., Ferrari, A. J., Erskine, H. E., Charlson, F. J., Norman, R. E., Flaxman, A. D., Johns, N., et al. (2013) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(13)61611-6 · Cited by 6,006
The size and burden of mental disorders and other disorders of the brain in Europe 2010
Wittchen, H. U., Jacobi, F., Rehm, J., Gustavsson, A., Svensson, M., Jönsson, B., Olesen, J., Allgulander, C., Alonso, J., Faravelli, C., et al. (2011) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2011.07.018 · Cited by 3,754
Neurogenetic Adaptive Mechanisms in Alcoholism
Cloninger, C. R. (1987) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.2882604 · Cited by 2,203
The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0093 · Cited by 1,717
Mackay, J. M., & Eriksen, M. P. (2002) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 1,322
Blum, K., Braverman, E. R., Holder, J. M., Lubar, J. F., Monastra, V. J., Miller, D., Lubar, J. O., Chen, T. J. H., & Comings, D. E. (2000) · Journal of Psychoactive Drugs · doi:10.1080/02791072.2000.10736099 · Cited by 998
Plasticity of reward neurocircuitry and the ‘dark side’ of drug addiction
Koob, G. F., & Le Moal, M. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1105-1442 · Cited by 963
Radua, J., Mataix-Cols, D., Phillips, M. L., El-Hage, W., Kronhaus, D. M., Cardoner, N., & Surguladze, S. (2012) · European Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.eurpsy.2011.04.001 · Cited by 765
Hart, H., Radua, J., Nakao, T., Mataix-Cols, D., & Rubia, K. (2013) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2013.277 · Cited by 764
Flagged first, then by citations
1 of the 81 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- [11]11. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2011;1216(1):50-61.
- [23]23. Schultz W. Reward signaling by dopamine neurons. Neuroscientist. 2001;7(4):293-302.
- [32]32. Stroup DF, Berlin JA, Morton SC, et al. Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. JAMA. 2000;283(15):2008-2012.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brand, M., Wegmann, E., Stark, R., Müller, A., Wölfling, K., Robbins, T. W., & Potenza, M. N. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.06.032 · Cited by 2,126
Zilverstand, A., Huang, A., Alia‐Klein, N., & Goldstein, R. Z. (2018) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2018.03.048 · Cited by 598
Potenza, M. N., Balodis, I. M., Derevensky, J., Grant, J. E., Petry, N. M., Verdejo-Garcia, A., & Yip, S. W. (2019) · Nature Reviews Disease Primers · doi:10.1038/s41572-019-0099-7 · Cited by 437
Oldham, S., Murawski, C., Fornito, A., Youssef, G. J., Yücel, M., & Lorenzetti, V. (2018) · Human Brain Mapping · doi:10.1002/hbm.24184 · Cited by 449
Evaluation of the Social Motivation Hypothesis of Autism: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis
Clements, C. C., Zoltowski, A. R., Yankowitz, L. D., Yerys, B. E., Schultz, R. T., & Herrington, J. D. (2018) · JAMA Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2018.1100 · Cited by 316
Metadata
- Authors
- Luijten, M., Schellekens, A. F., Kühn, S., Machielse, M. W. J., & Sescousse, G.
- Affiliations
- Radboud University Nijmegen (NL)
- Radboud University Medical Center (NL)
- University Medical Center Hamburg-Eppendorf (DE)
- Amsterdam UMC Location University of Amsterdam (NL)
- Corresponding author
- Luijten, Maartje
- Venue
- JAMA Psychiatry
- Publisher
- American Medical Association (AMA)
- Published
- 2017-04-01
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 387
- ISSN
- 2168-622X (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2584830124
- Cited by
- 402
- References
- 81
- Citations by year
- 2026: 44 · 2025: 37 · 2024: 24 · 2023: 43 · 2022: 47 · 2021: 48 · 2020: 55 · 2019: 49 · 2018: 40 · 2017: 14
- FWCI
- 5.31
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- JAMA Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Radboud Repository (Radboud University) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- reward processing, addiction, striatal dysfunction, reward anticipation, reward outcome, monetary rewards, substance use disorders, gambling addiction, ventral striatum, dorsal striatum, brain activation
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Female, Gambling, Humans, Image Interpretation, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Reference Values, Reward, Software, Substance-Related Disorders, Anticipation, Psychological
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review