Translational Assessments of Reward and Anhedonia: A Tribute to Athina Markou
Open accessAbstract
Loss of pleasure (clinically referred to as anhedonia), impairments in other reward-related processes such as reward learning, motivation, and reward valuation, and blunted affect characterize several mood and other psychiatric disorders. Despite the availability of many therapeutic options for these disorders, reward-related impairments remain challenging to treat and often persist despite alleviation of other symptoms. Lack of animal models of reward-related impairments and affect that have high construct and predictive validity is a key obstacle to developing novel treatments. This review highlights 1) guidelines to consider when developing translatable animal models; and 2) recent efforts to develop new reward-related assessments in humans and nonhuman animals that have been translated or back-translated from one species to another. The procedures described in this review are used to assess aspects of reward learning, motivated behavior, reward valuation, and affect. In several cases, researchers have attempted to implement task parameters that are as identical as possible to the parallel parameters used in existing cross-species tasks, with the goal of improving the translation of preclinical drug discovery findings to the clinic. In this regard, Dr. Athina Markou, who worked tirelessly throughout her career to understand and treat reward-related impairments across several psychiatric disorders, had great influence on conceptualizing the development and use of translational animal models of reward-related processes.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 102 · Cited by 36
- Authors
- Der-Avakian, A., & Pizzagalli, D. A.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- ORCID
- Pizzagalli, Diego A.
- Venue
- Biological Psychiatry
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2018-06
- Volume
- 83
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- 932-939
- ISSN
- 0006-3223 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC5953796
- OpenAlex
- W2790382053
- Cited by
- 36
- References
- 102
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 5
- FWCI
- 0.68
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Biological Psychiatry (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- eScholarship (California Digital Library) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (R01 AA026560, UH2 MH109334, R37 MH068376)
- 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
- anhedonia, reward processing, reward learning, reward valuation, motivation, affect, translational animal model, cross-species translation, mood disorders, mental illness, preclinical drug discovery
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Humans, Motivation, Reward, Guidelines as Topic, Models, Animal, Translational Research, Biomedical, Anhedonia
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