Increased ventral striatal BOLD activity during non-drug reward anticipation in cannabis users
Open accessAbstract
Despite an increased understanding of the pharmacology and long-term cognitive effects of cannabis in humans, there has been no research to date examining its chronic effects upon reward processing in the brain. Motivational theories regarding long-term drug use posit contrasting predictions with respect to how drug users are likely to process non-drug incentives. The reward deficiency syndrome (RDS) of addiction posits that there are deficits in dopamine (DA) motivational circuitry for non-drug rewards, such that only drugs of abuse are capable of normalizing DA in the ventral striatum (VS). Alternatively, the opponent process theory (OPT) holds that in individuals prone to drug use, there exists some form of mesolimbic hyperactivity, in which there is a bias towards reward-centred behaviour concomitant with impulsivity. The current study examined BOLD responses during reward and loss anticipation and their outcome deliveries in 14 chronic cannabis users and 14 drug-naive controls during a monetary incentive delay (MID) task. Despite no significant behavioural differences between the two groups, cannabis users had significantly more right VS BOLD activity during reward anticipation. Correlation analyses demonstrated that this right VS BOLD response was significantly correlated with life-time use and reported life-time cannabis joints consumed. No correlations between cannabis abstinence and BOLD responses were observed. We also observed a number of group differences following outcome deliveries, most notably hypoactivity in the left insula cortex in response to loss and loss avoidance outcome notifications in the cannabis group. These results may suggest hypersensitivity during instrumental response anticipation for non-drug rewards and a hyposensitivity to loss outcomes in chronic cannabis users; the implications of which are discussed with respect to the potentially sensitizing effects of cannabis for other rewards.
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.
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?
Altered mesolimbic function in substance-use disorders may be characterized not only by increased reward motivation for substance-related stimuli, but also by decreased reward motivation for natural rewards, which may lead to increased drug-seeking behaviors.
“Overall, these studies highlight that the effects of altered mesolimbic function in substance-use disorders may be characterized not only by increased reward motivation for substance-related stimuli, but also by decreased reward motivation for natural rewards (but there are exceptions [161]), which may lead to increased drug-seeking behaviors.”
From Reward circuitry dysfunction in psychiatric and neurodevelopmental disorders and genetic syndromes: animal models and clinical findings (2012) · cites this paper as [161]
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 105 · Cited by 186
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- Beck A Steer R Brown G 1996 Beck Depression Inventory—Second Edition manual The Psychological Corporation San Antonio, TX
- Authors
- Nestor, L., Hester, R., & Garavan, H.
- Affiliations
- Trinity College Dublin (IE)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Nestor, Liam
- Venue
- NeuroImage
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-01
- Volume
- 49
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 1133-1143
- ISSN
- 1053-8119 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC2764826
- OpenAlex
- W2046173356
- Cited by
- 186
- References
- 105
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 19 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 17 · 2013: 17 · 2012: 12
- FWCI
- 7.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Locations
- NeuroImage (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Trinity's Access to Research Output (TARA) (Trinity College Dublin) (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA01865-01, R03DA018685)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- chronic cannabis use, reward anticipation, ventral striatum, monetary incentive delay task, reward deficiency syndrome, opponent process theory, insula cortex, loss anticipation, loss avoidance, impulsivity
- MeSH terms
- Adult, Cannabis, Marijuana Abuse, Cues, Dopamine, Female, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Limbic System, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Oxygen, Putamen, Reward, Substance Withdrawal Syndrome, Neostriatum, Young Adult
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