Cited by 416Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Dissociating the Predictive and Incentive Motivational Properties of Reward-Related Cues Through the Study of Individual Differences

Open access
Robinson, Terry E., Flagel, Shelly B.·2009·Biological Psychiatry

Abstract

Background If presentation of a stimulus (conditional stimulus, CS) reliably predicts delivery of a reward, the CS will come to evoke a conditional response (CR) through Pavlovian learning, and the CS may also acquire incentive motivational properties. Thus, CSs can have both predictive and incentive properties. We ask here whether it is possible to dissociate the predictive versus incentive properties of a CS in rats by considering individual differences in the nature of the CR.Methods We used Pavlovian procedures to study the ability of a localizable CS (an illuminated lever) to acquire two properties of an incentive stimulus-the ability to attract and the ability to act as a conditional reinforcer.Results For some rats, the CS evoked a "sign-tracking" CR, consisting of approach toward and engagement with the CS itself. For other rats, the CS instead produced a "goal-tracking" CR: approach was directed away from the CS toward the site of food delivery. For sign-trackers (but not goal-trackers) the CS also acted as an effective conditional reinforcer.Conclusions The predictive and incentive properties of a CS can be dissociated by considering individual differences in the CR. In a given animal, a cue that is predictive of reward, supporting Pavlovian learning, may or may not be attributed with incentive salience. This procedure may provide a powerful means to test hypotheses regarding the role of neural systems in learning versus incentive motivational functions and to study individual variation in the extent to which reward-associated stimuli act as incentive stimuli.

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.biopsych.2008.09.006

Cites

19 of 19 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?

  • These results are consistent with incentive salience theory and highlight a dissociation between the predictive value of a cue, driven by cue learning, and the attribution of cue 'wanting'.

    “These results are consistent with the incentive salience theory, however, and highlight the dissociation that can occur between the predictive value of a cue, driven by cue learning (cue-reward association), and the attribution of cue ‘wanting’ (T. E. Robinson & Flagel, 2009; Zhang, Berridge, Tindell, Smith, & Aldridge, 2009).”
  • These two approach strategies are thought to differ in the amount of incentive salience assigned to the CS.

    “These two approach strategies are thought to differ in the amount of incentive salience assigned to the CS.40, 56”
  • Dopamine firing to reward cues can reflect the incentive salience of the cue and can in some cases reflect the treatment of the cue as a reward in itself.

    “Other influential accounts of dopamine function also highlight that dopamine firing to reward cues can reflect the incentive salience of the cue 20 and can in some cases reflect the treatment of the cue as a reward in itself 21.”
  • In rats selectively-bred for differences in locomotor responses to a novel environment, high responders to novelty (bHR) consistently learn a sign-tracking CR but low responders to novelty (bLR) consistently learn a goal-tracking CR.

    “In rats selectively-bred for differences in locomotor responses to a novel environment14, high responders to novelty (bHR) consistently learn a sign-tracking CR but low responders to novelty (bLR) consistently learn a goal-tracking CR15.”

    From A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning (2011) · cites this paper as [14]

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
Robinson, T. E., & Flagel, S. B.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Robinson, Terry E.
Venue
Biological Psychiatry
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2009-05
Volume
65
Issue
10
Pages
869-873
ISSN
0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2005718472
Cited by
416
References
19
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 20 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 67 · 2019: 28 · 2018: 27 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 28 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 21 · 2012: 10
FWCI
4.76
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Biological Psychiatry (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Drug Abuse (P01DA021633, R37DA004294, R37 DA04294)
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
classical conditioning, incentive salience, sign-tracking, goal tracking, individual differences, approach behavior, incentive motivation, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Individuality, Motivation, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, 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