CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 829Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Preferential activation of midbrain dopamine neurons by appetitive rather than aversive stimuli

Mirenowicz, Jacques, Schultz, Wolfram·1996·Nature
DOI 10.1038/379449a0
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Midbrain dopamine systems are crucially involved in motivational processes underlying the learning and execution of goal-directed behaviour. Dopamine neurons in monkeys are uniformly activated by unpredicted appetitive stimuli such as food and liquid rewards and conditioned, reward-predicting stimuli. By contrast, fully predicted stimuli are ineffective, and the omission of predicted reward depresses their activity. These characteristics follow associative-learning rules, suggesting that dopamine responses report an error in reward prediction. Accordingly, neural network models are efficiently trained using a dopamine-like reinforcement signal. However, it is unknown whether the responses to environmental stimuli concern specific motivational attributes or reflect more general stimulus salience. To resolve this, we have compared dopamine impulse responses to motivationally opposing appetitive and aversive stimuli. In contrast to appetitive events, primary and conditioned non-noxious aversive stimuli either failed to activate dopamine neurons or, in cases of close resemblance with appetitive stimuli, induced weaker responses than appetitive stimuli. Thus, dopamine neurons preferentially report environmental stimuli with appetitive rather than aversive motivational value.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/379449a0

Cites

32 of 32 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • In responding to infant social cues, mothers need to integrate affective and cognitive information about their baby, and evaluate competing demands, before choosing the most appropriate behavioral response.

    “In responding to infant social cues, whether positive or negative, mothers need to integrate both affective and cognitive information about their baby, and evaluate competing demands, before choosing the most appropriate behavioral response (52;53).”

    From What’s in a smile? Maternal brain responses to infant facial cues (2008) · cites this paper as [53]

  • Previously reported activations of dopamine neurons by punishers may have been due to physical impact of the tested stimuli, rather than true aversiveness.

    “Thus, it is possible that the previously reported activations of dopamine neurons by punishers15,17,19,21–24,134 may have been due to physical impact of the tested stimuli, rather than true aversiveness.”

    From Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: A two-component response (2016) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Phasic dopamine activations by aversive stimuli constitute the initial, unselective dopamine response component driven by physical impact, possibly boosted by reward context and reward generalization, rather than reflecting a straightforward aversive response.

    “The phasic dopamine activations by aversive stimuli seem to constitute the initial, unselective dopamine response component driven by physical impact25, and possibly boosted by reward context and reward generalization19, rather than reflecting a straightforward aversive response”

    From Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: A two-component response (2016) · cites this paper as [19]

  • Some studies have reported that aversive stimuli inhibit DA activity of midbrain neurons, whereas others have found that they elicit phasic DA release in the VS.

    “whereas some studies have reported that aversive stimuli inhibit the DA activity of midbrain neurons (e.g., [67]), others have found that they elicit phasic DA release in the VS (e.g., [68]).”

    From Contributions of the striatum to learning, motivation, and performance: an associative account (2012) · cites this paper as [67]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 33 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Mirenowicz, J., & Schultz, W.
Affiliations
University of Fribourg (CH)
Venue
Nature
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
1996-02
Volume
379
Issue
6564
Pages
449-451
ISSN
  • 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
  • 1476-4687
DOI
10.1038/379449a0
OpenAlex
W1979640215
Cited by
829
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 16 · 2024: 23 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 19 · 2018: 33 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 34 · 2015: 39 · 2014: 40 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 45
FWCI
11.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
Locations
  • Nature (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
midbrain dopaminergic neurons, appetitive stimuli, aversive stimuli, reward prediction error, motivational value, stimulus salience, reinforcement learning, goal-directed behavior
MeSH terms
Animals, Haplorhini, Appetitive Behavior, Avoidance Learning, Dopamine, Mesencephalon, Neurons

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