Cited by 37Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Effect of disconnecting the orbital prefrontal cortex from the nucleus accumbens core on inter-temporal choice behaviour: A quantitative analysis

Open access
Bezzina, G., Body, S., Cheung, T.H.C., Hampson, C.L., Bradshaw, C.M., Szabadi, E., Anderson, I.M., Deakin, J.F.W.·2008·Behavioural Brain Research

Abstract

Previous experiments showed that destruction of the orbital prefrontal cortex (OPFC) or the nucleus accumbens core (AcbC) in rats altered choice between two delayed food reinforcers. Application of a quantitative model of inter-temporal choice suggested that lesions of either structure increased the delay-dependent degradation of reinforcer value (delay discounting); destruction of the OPFC (but not the AcbC) also increased the relative value of the larger reinforcer. This experiment examined the effect of disconnecting the OPFC from the AcbC on inter-temporal choice. Rats received excitotoxin-induced contralateral lesions of the OPFC and AcbC (disconnection), severing of the anterior corpus callosum (callosotomy), a combined lesion (disconnection+callosotomy) or sham lesions. They were trained in a discrete-trials progressive delay schedule to press levers A and B for a sucrose solution. Responses on A delivered 50 microl of the solution after a delay d(A); responses on B delivered 100 microl after a delay d(B). d(B) increased across blocks of trials; d(A) was manipulated across phases of the experiment. Indifference delay, d(B50) (value of d(B) corresponding to 50% choice of B), was estimated for each rat in each phase, and linear indifference functions (d(B50)vs. d(A)) were derived. The disconnection+callosotomy group showed a lower intercept of the indifference function (implying a higher rate of delay discounting) than the sham-lesioned group; the disconnection group showed a similar but less robust effect, whereas the callosotomy group did not differ significantly from the sham-lesioned group. The results suggest that OPFC-AcbC connections are involved in delay discounting of food reinforcers, but provide no evidence for an involvement of OPFC-AcbC connections in regulating sensitivity to reinforcer size.

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 · 10.1016/j.bbr.2008.03.041

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • Delay discounting depends on connections between prefrontal cortex/orbitofrontal cortex and nucleus accumbens.

    “Interestingly, delay discounting seems to depend on the function of the ventral striatum (104) and of the PFC, including OFC (105) and its connections to the NAc (106), and is sensitive to DA manipulations (107).”

    From Obesity and addiction: Neurobiological overlaps (2013) · cites this paper as [106]

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [39]Snedecor G.W. Cochran W.G. Statistical methods 8th ed. 1989 Iowa State University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Bezzina, G., Body, S., Cheung, T. H. C., Hampson, C. L., Bradshaw, C. M., Szabadi, E., Anderson, I. M., & Deakin, J. F. W.
Affiliations
  • University of Nottingham (GB)
  • University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Bradshaw, C.M.
Venue
Behavioural Brain Research
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-08
Volume
191
Issue
2
Pages
272-279
ISSN
0166-4328 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2038793557
Cited by
37
References
44
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2023: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 5 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 7
FWCI
1.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Behavioural Brain Research (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Funders
Wellcome Trust
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
orbitofrontal cortex, nucleus accumbens core, intertemporal choice, delay discounting, excitotoxic lesions, corpus callosotomy, anterior corpus callosum, food reinforcement, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Conditioning, Operant, Denervation, Female, Food Deprivation, Functional Laterality, Neural Pathways, Nucleus Accumbens, Phosphopyruvate Hydratase, Reaction Time, Reinforcement, Psychology, Time Factors, Linear Models, Rats, Wistar, Prefrontal Cortex, 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