Cited by 44Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesSubstance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes

Cocaine addiction as a homeostatic reinforcement learning disorder.

Open access
Keramati, Mehdi, Durand, Audrey, Girardeau, Paul, Gutkin, Boris, Ahmed, Serge H.·2017·Psychological Review

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Drug addiction implicates both reward learning and homeostatic regulation mechanisms of the brain. This has stimulated 2 partially successful theoretical perspectives on addiction. Many important aspects of addiction, however, remain to be explained within a single, unified framework that integrates the 2 mechanisms. Building upon a recently developed homeostatic reinforcement learning theory, the authors focus on a key transition stage of addiction that is well modeled in animals, escalation of drug use, and propose a computational theory of cocaine addiction where cocaine reinforces behavior due to its rapid homeostatic corrective effect, whereas its chronic use induces slow and long-lasting changes in homeostatic setpoint. Simulations show that our new theory accounts for key behavioral and neurobiological features of addiction, most notably, escalation of cocaine use, drug-primed craving and relapse, individual differences underlying dose-response curves, and dopamine D2-receptor downregulation in addicts. The theory also generates unique predictions about cocaine self-administration behavior in rats that are confirmed by new experimental results. Viewing addiction as a homeostatic reinforcement learning disorder coherently explains many behavioral and neurobiological aspects of the transition to cocaine addiction, and suggests a new perspective toward understanding addiction. (PsycINFO Database Record

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 · 10.1037/rev0000046

Cites

146 of 146 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?

  • Opponent-process theory posited negative hedonic states of withdrawal and dysphoria to be the chief force driving addicts to take drugs.

    “For example, in drug addiction, the opponent-process theory posited negative hedonic states of withdrawal and dysphoria to be the chief force driving addicts to take drugs (Solomon and Corbit, 1974), a view that still has adherents (Koob and Volkow, 2016; Keramati et al., 2017).”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Keramati et al., 2017

  • Modern proponents suggest that downregulation or loss of brain dopamine D2 receptors makes addicts experience less pleasure in their lives than other people, and consequently addicts must take addictive drugs to achieve normal levels of dopamine stimulation and pleasure.

    “Modern proponents suggest that downregulation or loss of brain dopamine D2 receptors (one of the two main types of neuronal receptors for dopamine) make addicts experience less pleasure in their lives than other people (Koob and Volkow, 2016; Keramati et al., 2017). Consequently, these theorists argue that addicts must take addictive drugs to achieve normal levels of dopamine stimulation and”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Keramati et al., 2017

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
Keramati, M., Durand, A., Girardeau, P., Gutkin, B., & Ahmed, S. H.
Affiliations
  • Laboratoire de Neurosciences Cognitives et Computationnelles (FR)
  • Université de Bordeaux (FR)
  • Inserm (FR)
Venue
Psychological Review
Published
2017-03
Volume
124
Issue
2
Pages
130-153
ISSN
  • 0033-295X (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1471
OpenAlex
W2576060326
Cited by
44
References
146
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2
FWCI
2.28
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by-nc-nd
Locations
  • Psychological Review (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • City Research Online (City University London) (submittedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Frontiers du Vivant
  • French MESR
  • Centre national de la recherche scientifique
  • Institut National de la Santé et de la Recherche Médicale
  • French National Research Agency (ANR2010-BLAN-1404-0)
  • ENP
  • NERF
  • Université de Bordeaux
  • Conseil Régional d'Aquitaine (CRA20101301022; CRA11004375/11004699)
  • LabEX BRAIN (ANR-10-LABX-43)
  • Russian Academic Excellence Project
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
Keywords
cocaine dependence, relapse, cocaine self-administration, reward learning, homeostatic regulation
MeSH terms
Animals, Homeostasis, Humans, Learning Disabilities, Psychological Theory, Recurrence, Reinforcement, Psychology, Self Administration, Receptors, Dopamine D2, Cocaine-Related Disorders, Rats, Craving

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