Nucleus accumbens dopamine depletions alter relative response allocation in a T-maze cost/benefit task
Abstract
This experiment was conducted to study the role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in the performance of a novel T-maze cost/benefit procedure. Rats were trained on a T-maze task for food reinforcement. Under one of the test conditions, one arm of the maze contained a high reinforcement density (4 x 45 mg Bioserve pellets) and the other arm contained a low reinforcement density (2 x 45 mg pellets). A large vertical barrier (44 cm) was placed in the arm that contained the high density of food reinforcement. In the second test condition, a separate group of rats was trained in the same T-maze, in which there were 4 food pellets in the arm that was obstructed by the barrier, yet there were no food pellets in the unobstructed arm. After training rats received intra-accumbens of injections 6-hydroxydopamine or ascorbate vehicle. Nucleus accumbens dopamine depletions substantially decreased the number of selections of the obstructed arm with the high reinforcement density when the unobstructed arm also contained 2 food pellets. Dopamine-depleted rats in this condition showed increased selection of the no-barrier arm as well as decreased entry into the arm that contained the barrier. These effects persisted throughout the 3 weeks of post-surgical testing. Nevertheless, when the unobstructed arm contained no food pellets, and the only way to obtain food was to climb the barrier, rats with nucleus accumbens dopamine depletions showed only a modest effect on selections of the obstructed arm…
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Stimulants likely enhance motivation and other striatal functions not engaged by NE medications.
“On the other hand, stimulants likely enhance motivation and other striatal functions not engaged by NE medications (135).”
From Catecholamine Influences on Dorsolateral Prefrontal Cortical Networks (2011) · cites this paper as [135]
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 72 · Cited by 236
- Authors
- Cousins, M. S., Atherton, A., Turner, L., & Salamone, J. D.
- Affiliations
- University of Connecticut (US)
- Corresponding author
- Salamone, J.D.
- ORCID
- Salamone, J.D.
- Venue
- Behavioural Brain Research
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 1996-01
- Volume
- 74
- Issue
- 1-2
- Pages
- 189-197
- ISSN
- 0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1985771124
- Cited by
- 236
- References
- 72
- Citations by year
- 2026: 5 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 12 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 17 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 10
- FWCI
- 1.48
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- National Science Foundation
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- nucleus accumbens, dopamine depletion, 6-hydroxydopamine, T-maze, cost-benefit decision making, response allocation, rats
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Cost-Benefit Analysis, Dopamine, Food, Male, Nucleus Accumbens, Reinforcement, Psychology, Sympatholytics, Oxidopamine, Neostriatum, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Maze Learning, Rats
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