Cited by 157Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Current perspectives on incentive salience and applications to clinical disorders

Open access
Olney, Jeffrey J, Warlow, Shelley M, Naffziger, Erin E, Berridge, Kent C·2018·Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences

Abstract

Affective neuroscience research has revealed that reward contains separable components of 'liking', 'wanting', and learning. Here we focus on current 'liking' and 'wanting' findings and applications to clinical disorders. 'Liking' is the hedonic impact derived from a pleasant experience, and is amplified by opioid and related signals in discrete sites located in limbic-related brain areas. 'Wanting' refers to incentive salience, a motivation process for reward, and is mediated by larger systems involving mesocorticolimbic dopamine. Deficits in incentive salience may contribute to avolitional features of depression and related disorders, whereas deficits in hedonic impact may produce true anhedonia. Excesses in incentive salience, on the other hand, can lead to addiction, especially when narrowly focused on a particular target. Finally, a fearful form of motivational salience may even contribute to some paranoia symptoms of schizophrenia and related disorders.

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.cobeha.2018.01.007

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.

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?

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 118 · Cited by 157

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [8]Reilly S Schachtman TR Conditioned taste aversion: neural and behavioral processes Oxford University Press 2008

Authors
Olney, J. J., Warlow, S. M., Naffziger, E. E., & Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Olney, Jeffrey J
Venue
Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2018-08
Volume
22
Pages
59-69
ISSN
2352-1546 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2793123986
Cited by
157
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 14 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 8 · 2013: 1
FWCI
2.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (DA015188, MH063649, DA007268, DC00011, DA007281)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
incentive salience, reward processing, liking, wanting, anhedonia, avolition, depression, addiction, dopamine, mesocorticolimbic system, opioid signaling, limbic system, motivational salience, fear, paranoia, schizophrenia

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