Cited by 280Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesGambling Behavior and Treatments

Mechanisms underlying dopamine-mediated reward bias in compulsive behaviors

Open access
Voon, Valerie, Pessiglione, Mathias, Brezing, Christina, Gallea, Cecile, Fernandez, Hubert H., Dolan, Raymond J., Hallett, Mark·2010·Neuron

Abstract

Pathological behaviors such as problem gambling or shopping are characterized by compulsive choice despite alternative options and negative costs. Reinforcement learning algorithms allow a computation of prediction error, a comparison of actual and expected outcomes, which updates our predictions and influences our subsequent choices. Using a reinforcement learning model, we show data consistent with the idea that dopamine agonists in susceptible individuals with Parkinson's disease increase the rate of learning from gain outcomes. Dopamine agonists also increase striatal prediction error activity, thus signifying a "better than expected" outcome. Thus, our findings are consistent with a model whereby a distorted estimation of the gain cue underpins a choice bias toward gains.

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.neuron.2009.12.027

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 33 · Cited by 280

Authors
Voon, V., Pessiglione, M., Brezing, C., Gallea, C., Fernandez, H. H., Dolan, R. J., & Hallett, M.
Affiliations
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
  • Inserm (FR)
  • University of Florida (US)
  • Wellcome Centre for Human Neuroimaging (GB)
Corresponding author
Voon, Valerie
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-01
Volume
65
Issue
1
Pages
135-142
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2010073791
Cited by
280
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 19 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 22 · 2013: 39 · 2012: 27
FWCI
14.21
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (Z01NS003031)
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 › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
dopamine, reward bias, gambling addiction, compulsive buying, reinforcement learning, prediction error, dopamine agonists, Parkinson's disease, striatum
MeSH terms
Choice Behavior, Compulsive Behavior, Corpus Striatum, Dopamine, Gambling, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Parkinson Disease, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Bias

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