Cited by 210Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Cortical activation during delay discounting in abstinent methamphetamine dependent individuals

Open access
Hoffman, William F., Schwartz, Daniel L., Huckans, Marilyn S., McFarland, Bentson H., Meiri, Gal, Stevens, Alexander A., Mitchell, Suzanne H.·2008·Psychopharmacology

Abstract

Background Methamphetamine (MA)-dependent individuals prefer smaller immediate over larger delayed rewards in delay discounting (DD) tasks. Human and animal data implicate ventral (amygdala, ventral striatum, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex insula) and dorsal (dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex and posterior parietal cortex) systems in DD decisions. The ventral system is hypothesized to respond to the salience and immediacy of rewards while the dorsal system is implicated in the process of comparison and choice.Methods We used functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging to probe the neural correlates of DD in 19 recently abstinent MA-dependent patients and 17 age- and gender-matched controls.Results Hard DD choices were associated with greatest activation in bilateral middle cingulate, posterior parietal cortex (PPC), and the right rostral insula. Control subjects showed more activation than MA patients bilaterally in the precuneus and in the right caudate nucleus, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Magnitude of discounting was correlated with activity in the amygdala, DLPFC, posterior cingulate cortex and PPC.Conclusions Our findings were consistent with a model wherein dorsal cognitive systems modulate the neural response of ventral regions. Patients addicted to MA, who strongly prefer smaller immediate over larger delayed rewards, activate the dorsal cognitive control system in order to overcome their preference. Activation of the amygdala during choice of delayed rewards was associated with a greater degree of discounting, suggesting that heavily discounting MA-dependent individuals may be more responsive to the negative salience of delayed rewards than controls.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s00213-008-1261-1

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Insula and anterior cingulate activation are atypical in individuals with addiction disorders during decision-making and risk-taking.

    “Similarly, insula and anterior cingulate activation have been found to be atypical in individuals with addiction disorders during decision-making and risk-taking (Gowin et al., 2014; Hoffman et al., 2008; London et al., 2005; Nestor et al., 2011; Paulus, Hozack, et al., 2003).”

    From Atypical interoception as a common risk factor for psychopathology: A review (2021) · cites this paper as Hoffman et al., 2008

    The Results (MA group vs. control group; page unavailable) identify a difference in right anterior cingulate activation during delay-discounting decisions. The Results (Functional MRI; page unavailable) report insula activation during difficult decisions in the combined groups, but do not identify atypical insula activation in the methamphetamine-dependent group. The study also addresses delay-discounting decisions, not risk-taking broadly. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hoffman, W. F., Schwartz, D. L., Huckans, M. S., McFarland, B. H., Meiri, G., Stevens, A. A., & Mitchell, S. H.
Affiliations
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • United States Department of Veterans Affairs (US)
  • Ben-Gurion University of the Negev (IL)
Corresponding author
Hoffman, William F.
Venue
Psychopharmacology
Published
2008-08-07
Volume
201
Issue
2
Pages
183-193
ISSN
  • 0033-3158 (ISSN-L)
  • 1432-2072
OpenAlex
W2054590164
Cited by
210
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 8 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 19 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 27
FWCI
5.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychopharmacology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA015543, P50DA018165, R01DA015543)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
delay discounting, methamphetamine dependence, abstinence, amygdala, dorsolateral prefrontal cortex, posterior parietal cortex, anterior cingulate cortex, posterior cingulate cortex, insula, caudate nucleus, precuneus, delayed rewards, impulsivity, neural correlates of decision making
MeSH terms
Adult, Amygdala, Choice Behavior, Data Interpretation, Statistical, Female, Gyrus Cinguli, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Anatomic, Parietal Lobe, Behavior, Addictive, Prefrontal Cortex, Amphetamine-Related Disorders

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