Cited by 236Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Nucleus accumbens dopamine depletions alter relative response allocation in a T-maze cost/benefit task

Cousins, M.S., Atherton, A., Turner, L., Salamone, J.D.·1996·Behavioural Brain Research

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

Crossref · 10.1016/0166-4328(95)00151-4

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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).”

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.
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