Mesolimbic recruitment by nondrug rewards in detoxified alcoholics: effort anticipation, reward anticipation, and reward delivery
Open accessAbstract
Aberrant sensitivity of incentive neurocircuitry to nondrug rewards has been suggested as either a risk factor for or consequence of drug addiction. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, we tested whether alcohol‐dependent patients (ADP: n = 29) showed altered recruitment of ventral striatal (VS) incentive neurocircuitry compared to controls (n = 23) by: (1) cues to respond for monetary rewards, (2) post‐response anticipation of rewards, or (3) delivery of rewards. Using an instrumental task with two‐stage presentation of reward‐predictive information, subjects saw cues signaling opportunities to win $0, $1, or $10 for responding to a target. Following this response, subjects were notified whether their success would be indicated by a lexical notification (“Hit?”) or by delivery of a monetary reward (“Win?”). After a variable interval, subjects then viewed the trial outcome. We found no significant group differences in voxelwise activation by task contrasts, or in signal change extracted from VS. Both ADP and controls showed significant VS and other limbic recruitment by pre‐response reward anticipation. In addition, controls also showed VS recruitment by post‐response reward‐anticipation, and ADP had appreciable subthreshold VS activation. Both groups also showed similar mesolimbic responses to reward deliveries. Across all subjects, a questionnaire measure of “hot” impulsivity correlated with VS recruitment by post‐response anticipation of low rewards and with VS recruitment by delivery of low rewards. These findings indicate that incentive‐motivational processing of nondrug rewards is substantially maintained in recovering alcoholics, and that reward‐elicited VS recruitment correlates more with individual differences in trait impulsivity irrespective of addiction. Hum Brain Mapp 33:2174–2188, 2012. Published 2011 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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
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?
A few studies have started to examine preparation and anticipation separately by separating them temporally, but none have compared adolescents to adults.
“A few studies have started to examine these two types of processes separately by separating them temporally, but none have compared adolescents to adults (Bjork et al., 2012; Bjork et al., 2008).”
From A systematic review of fMRI reward paradigms used in studies of adolescents vs. adults: The impact of task design and implications for understanding neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as Bjork et al., 2012
The distinction between cue appraisal and test preparation may be important because adolescents and adults differ in their relative reliance on striatal function across these stages.
“The distinction between these two early stages of reward processing (cue appraisal and test preparation, see Figure 2), which has not been explicitly noted in the past (but see Bjork et al., 2012; Bjork et al., 2008), may be quite important, based on the differential relative reliance on striatal function by adolescents and adults across the two stages.”
From A systematic review of fMRI reward paradigms used in studies of adolescents vs. adults: The impact of task design and implications for understanding neurodevelopment (2013) · cites this paper as Bjork et al., 2012
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 51 · Cited by 70
- Authors
- Bjork, J. M., Smith, A. R., Chen, G., & Hommer, D. W.
- Affiliations
- National Institutes of Health (US)
- Venue
- Human Brain Mapping
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2011-08-30
- Volume
- 33
- Issue
- 9
- Pages
- 2174-2188
- ISSN
- 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
- 1097-0193
- PMC
- PMC3342463
- OpenAlex
- W2110411094
- Cited by
- 70
- References
- 51
- Citations by year
- 2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 2 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 2
- FWCI
- 1.72
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Keywords
- alcoholism, alcohol detoxification, ventral striatum, mesolimbic system, incentive processing, reward anticipation, monetary rewards, impulsivity, addiction recovery
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Alcoholism, Behavior, Brain Mapping, Corpus Striatum, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Impulsive Behavior, Individuality, Limbic System, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Motivation, Nucleus Accumbens, Oxygen, Reaction Time, Recruitment, Neurophysiological, Reward, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Young Adult, 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