The DOI matches its Crossref record; 41 of the 41 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 39 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning
Open accessAbstract
Individuals make choices and prioritize goals using complex processes that assign value to rewards and associated stimuli. During Pavlovian learning, previously neutral stimuli that predict rewards can acquire motivational properties, becoming attractive and desirable incentive stimuli. However, whether a cue acts solely as a predictor of reward, or also serves as an incentive stimulus, differs between individuals. Thus, individuals vary in the degree to which cues bias choice and potentially promote maladaptive behaviour. Here we use rats that differ in the incentive motivational properties they attribute to food cues to probe the role of the neurotransmitter dopamine in stimulus–reward learning. We show that intact dopamine transmission is not required for all forms of learning in which reward cues become effective predictors. Rather, dopamine acts selectively in a form of stimulus–reward learning in which incentive salience is assigned to reward cues. In individuals with a propensity for this form of learning, reward cues come to powerfully motivate and control behaviour. This work provides insight into the neurobiology of a form of stimulus–reward learning that confers increased susceptibility to disorders of impulse control.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Dopamine is not required for all forms of stimulus-reward learning; it selectively supports the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues. In rats, sign-trackers show increasing CS-evoked and decreasing US-evoked nucleus accumbens dopamine during Pavlovian conditioning, and dopamine antagonism prevents acquisition of sign-tracking but not goal-tracking conditioned responses.
Key findings
- Systemic flupenthixol attenuated performance of the conditioned response in both bHRs and bLRs, but only bHRs failed to acquire a sign-tracking CR when trained on drug; on drug-free session 8, bHRs still failed to show sign-tracking (P≤0.01 vs saline), whereas bLRs showed a fully developed goal-tracking CR (session 8 vs session 1, P≤0.0002; vs bLR saline, P≥0.6).
- During acquisition, CS-evoked dopamine release increased in bHRs relative to unpaired controls (pairing × session: F(5,35)=4.58, P=0.003) but not bLRs (F(5,35)=0.94, P=0.46); trial-by-trial correlation with trial number was significant for bHR (r²=0.14, P<0.0001) but not bLR (r²=0.003, P=0.54), with different slopes (P=0.005) and higher CS-evoked dopamine in bHRs after acquisition (session six, P=0.04).
- US-evoked dopamine release was lower after acquisition in bHRs (session six, P=0.002), and CS and US signals diverged in bHRs (stimulus × session: F(5,40)=5.47, P=0.0006) but not bLRs (F(5,40)=0.28, P=0.92).
- Outbred rats reproduced the pattern: sign-trackers showed increased CS-evoked and decreased US-evoked dopamine during learning (stimulus × session: F(5,50)=4.43, P=0.002), whereas goal-trackers did not (F(5,40)=0.48, P=0.72); the lever-CS was also a more effective conditioned reinforcer in bHRs than bLRs (phenotype × group interaction for active nose pokes: F(1,33)=4.82, P=0.04).
Methods
- Adult male Sprague-Dawley rats from a selective-breeding colony (bHR/bLR, generations S18–S22) and commercially obtained outbred rats underwent Pavlovian conditioning with a lever-CS paired with food; conditioned responses were classified as sign-tracking (approach lever-CS) or goal-tracking (approach food-tray).
- Fast-scan cyclic voltammetry at carbon-fiber microelectrodes in the nucleus accumbens core measured phasic dopamine (scans every 100 ms, 10 Hz) during conditioning; recording sites were verified histologically.
- Flupenthixol (i.p.) was given for performance (150, 300, or 600 μg/kg before sessions 9, 11, 13, counterbalanced with saline before sessions 8, 10, 12, 14) and for acquisition (225 μg/kg before sessions 1–7); main analyses used ANOVA/ANOVA with session as a continuous variable and correlations.
Limitations
- Stated: the neural mechanisms underlying sign-tracking and goal-tracking behavior remain to be elucidated; the neurochemical data alone do not rule out the possibility that prediction-error signals are present in other dopamine terminal regions.
- Stated: the post-acquisition flupenthixol finding needs cautious interpretation because of a non-specific effect on activity.
- Evident from the text: the causal dopamine manipulation was systemic flupenthixol, and the sample was male rats (selectively bred plus outbred); no female or human data are reported.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
22 Own result · 19 Not checked yet · 19 Own interpretation
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Systemic administration of flupenthixol, a nonspecific dopamine receptor antagonist, attenuated performance of the CR for both bHRs and bLRs.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With training, bHRs came to rapidly approach and engage the lever-CS (Fig. 1a-b)”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This effect was clearly evident when the antagonist was administered during training (Fig. 4, sessions 1–7).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“First, US-evoked dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens decreased during training in sign-trackers, but not in goal-trackers.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Moreover, in outbred rats where this baseline difference in responding does not exist, we have found similar results, indicating that the lever-CS is a more effective conditioned reinforcer for sign-trackers than goal-trackers13.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Boakes, R. in Operant-Pavlovian Interactions (eds Davis, H. & Hurwitz, H. M. B.) 67–97 (Erlbaum, 1977)
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, experiments conducted in commercially-obtained outbred rats reproduced the pattern of dopamine release observed in the selectively-bred rats (Fig. 3, Fig. S4).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We show that intact dopamine transmission is not required for all forms of learning in which reward cues become effective predictors.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: It has been difficult to determine whether dopamine mediates the predictive or the motivational properties of reward-associated cues, because these two features are often acquired together.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, rats that received non-contiguous (pseudorandom) presentations of the CS and the US did not learn either a sign-tracking or a goal-tracking CR (Fig. 1e).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During four additional sessions, the profound differences in dopamine release between sign- and goal-trackers were stable (Fig. S5), demonstrating that these differences are not limited to the initial stages of learning.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“whereas upon CS presentation bLRs came to rapidly approach and engage the location where food would be delivered (Fig. 1c-d; see detailed statistics in Supplementary Information).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 33
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
- Probably not a substantial claim. 4
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both bHRs and bLRs acquired their respective CRs as a function of training, as there was a significant effect of session for all measures of sign-tracking behavior for bHRs (a-b; P≤0.0001), and of goal-tracking behavior for bLRs (c-d; P≤0.0001).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“US-evoked dopamine release also differed between bHR and bLR rats during training (session x phenotype interaction: F(5,40) = 6.09, P = 0.0003), but for this stimulus dopamine release was lower after acquisition in bHRs (session six; P = 0.002; Fig. S4).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the trial-by-trial correlation between CS-evoked dopamine release and trial number was significant for bHR (r2=0.14, P < 0.0001) but not bLR (r2=0.003, P=0.54) rats, producing significantly different slopes (P=0.005) and higher CS-evoked dopamine release in bHR rats after acquisition (Fig. S4, session six; P = 0.04).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“During the acquisition of conditioned approach, CS-evoked dopamine release (Fig. 2, Fig. S3) increased in bHR rats relative to unpaired controls (pairing x session interaction: F(5,35) = 4.58, P = 0.003), but there was no such effect in bLRs (Fig. 2, Fig. S3; pairing x session interaction: F(5,35) = 0.94, P = 0.46).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Third, bHR rats that underwent Pavlovian training in the presence of a dopamine receptor antagonist did not acquire a sign-tracking CR, consistent with previous reports24; however, dopamine antagonism had no effect on learning a goal-tracking CR in bLR rats.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Clark, J. J. et al. Chronic microsensors for longitudinal, subsecond dopamine detection in behaving animals. Nature Methods 7, 126–129 (2010) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, bHRs and bLRs learned their respective CRs at the same rate, as indicated by analyses of variance in which session was treated as a continuous variable and the phenotypes were directly compared.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CS and US signals diverge in bHR rats (stimulus x session interaction: F(5,40) = 5.47, P = 0.0006; Fig. 2c) but not bLR rats (stimulus x session interaction: F(5,40) = 0.28, P = 0.92; Fig. 2f).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Specifically, there was an increase in CS-evoked and a decrease in US-evoked dopamine release during learning in outbred rats that learned a sign-tracking CR (stimulus x session interaction: F(5,50) = 4.43, P = 0.002; Fig. 3d), but not in those that learned a goal-tracking CR (stimulus x session interaction: F(5,40) = 0.48, P = 0.72; Fig. 3f).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“When presentation of a lever-CS was paired with food delivery both bHRs and bLRs developed a Pavlovian CR, but as we have described previously15, the topography of the CR was different in the two groups.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Stead, J. D. et al. Selective breeding for divergence in novelty-seeking traits: heritability and enrichment in spontaneous anxiety-related behaviors. Behav. Genet. 36, 697–712 (2006) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“However, the lever-CS was a more effective conditioned reinforcer in bHR than bLR animals, as indicated by a significant phenotype x group interaction for active nose pokes (F(1,33)=4.82, P=0.04), which controls for “basal” differences in nosepoke responding.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In contrast, flupenthixol had no effect on learning the CS-US association that lead to a goal-tracking CR (P≥0.6 vs. saline, session 8; Fig. 4d-f), because on the drug-free session bLRs showed a fully developed goal-tracking CR—their session 8 performance differed significantly from their session 1 performance (P≤0.0002).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both conditioned bHRs and bLRs made more active than inactive nose pokes, and more active nose pokes than control groups that received pseudorandom presentations of the CS and the US (Fig. 1f-g; detailed statistics in Supplementary Information).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Second, the CS evoked dopamine release in both sign- and goal-tracking rats, but this signal increased to a greater degree in sign-trackers, which attributed incentive salience to the CS.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Similar to surgically naïve animals, bHRs learned a sign-tracking CR (session effect on lever contacts: F(5,20) = 5.76, P = 0.002) and bLRs a goal-tracking CR (session effect on food-receptacle contacts: F(5,20) = 5.18, P = 0.003) during neurochemical data collection (Fig. S2).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It was also observed after the rats had already acquired their respective CR (Fig. S6), but this latter finding needs to be interpreted cautiously because of a non-specific effect on activity (Figure S6e).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Outbred rats with similar baseline locomotor activity13 and similar baseline levels of reward-related dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens (see Fig. 3), differ in whether they are prone to learn a sign-tracking or goal-tracking CR, but they still develop patterns of dopamine release specific to that CR.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Boakes, R. in Operant-Pavlovian Interactions (eds Davis, H. & Hurwitz, H. M. B.) 67–97 (Erlbaum, 1977)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, learning a goal-tracking CR does not require intact dopamine transmission, whereas learning a sign-tracking CR does.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: It has been difficult to determine whether dopamine mediates the predictive or the motivational properties of reward-associated cues, because these two features are often acquired together.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In summary, the lever-CS was equally predictive, evoking a CR in both groups, but it acquired two properties of an incentive stimulus to a greater degree in bHRs than bLRs: it was more attractive, as indicated by approach behavior (Fig. 1a) and more desirable, as indicated by the ability to serve as a conditioned reinforcer (Fig. 1f).”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Phasic neurotransmission in the mesolimbic dopamine system is initially triggered by the receipt of reward (unconditional stimulus; US), but shifts to a cue predictive of reward (conditional stimulus; CS) after associative learning3,4.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3] Day, J. J., Roitman, M. F., Wightman, R. M. & Carelli, R. M. Associative learning mediates dynamic shifts in dopamine signaling in the nucleus accumbens. Nature Neurosci. 10, 1020–1028 (2007) source
- Not checked yetcites [4] Schultz, W., Dayan, P. & Montague, P. R. A neural substrate of prediction and reward. Science 275, 1593–1599 (1997) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“However, only in sign-trackers is the CS an attractive incentive stimulus, and only in sign-trackers is it strongly desired (i.e. “wanted”), in the sense that animals will work avidly to get it13.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [13] Boakes, R. in Operant-Pavlovian Interactions (eds Davis, H. & Hurwitz, H. M. B.) 67–97 (Erlbaum, 1977)
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These behavioral phenotypes are accompanied by baseline differences in dopamine transmission, with bHRs showing elevated sensitivity to dopamine agonists, increased proportion of striatal D2receptors in a high-affinity state, greater frequency of spontaneous dopamine transients15, and higher reward-related dopamine release prior to conditioning, all of which could enhance their attribution of in”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Stead, J. D. et al. Selective breeding for divergence in novelty-seeking traits: heritability and enrichment in spontaneous anxiety-related behaviors. Behav. Genet. 36, 697–712 (2006) source
- Not checked yetcites [29] Wyvell, C. L. & Berridge, K. C. Intra-accumbens amphetamine increases the conditioned incentive salience of sucrose reward: enhancement of reward "wanting" without enhanced "liking" or response reinforcement. J. Neurosci. 20, 8122–8130 (2000) source
- Not checked yetcites [30] Wyvell, C. L. & Berridge, K. C. Incentive sensitization by previous amphetamine exposure: increased cue-triggered "wanting" for sucrose reward. J. Neurosci. 21, 7831–7840 (2001) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, while dopamine may be necessary for the performance of both sign-tracking and goal-tracking CRs, it is only necessary for acquisition of a sign-tracking CR, indicating that these forms of learning are mediated by distinct neural systems.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The selectively-bred rats used in this study have distinctive behavioral phenotypes, including greater behavioral disinhibition and reduced impulse control in bHRs15.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Stead, J. D. et al. Selective breeding for divergence in novelty-seeking traits: heritability and enrichment in spontaneous anxiety-related behaviors. Behav. Genet. 36, 697–712 (2006) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“More importantly, when examined off flupenthixol during the 8th test session, bHRs still failed to demonstrate a sign-tracking CR (P≤0.01 vs. saline, session 8; Fig. 4a-c), indicating that dopamine is necessary for both the performance and the learning of a sign-tracking CR, consistent with previous findings20.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Dalley, J. W. et al. Time-limited modulation of appetitive Pavlovian memory by D1 and NMDA receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 6189–6194 (2005) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The core of the nucleus accumbens is an important anatomical substrate for motivated behavior17,18 and has been specifically implicated as a site where dopamine acts to mediate the acquisition and/or performance of Pavlovian conditioned approach behavior19–22.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [17] Berridge, K. C. in Psychology of Learning and Motivation (ed. Medin, D. L.) 223–278 (Academic Press, 2001)
- Not checked yetcites [18] Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J. & Everitt, B. J. Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 321–352 (2002) source
- Not checked yetcites [19] Kelley, A. E. Functional specificity of ventral striatal compartments in appetitive behaviors. Ann. NY Acad. Sci. 877, 71–90 (1999) source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Dalley, J. W. et al. Time-limited modulation of appetitive Pavlovian memory by D1 and NMDA receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 6189–6194 (2005) source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Di Ciano, P., Cardinal, R. N., Cowell, R. A., Little, S. J. & Everitt, B. J. Differential involvement of NMDA, AMPA/kainate, and dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens core in the acquisition and performance of pavlovian approach behavior. J. Neurosci. 21, 9471–9477 (2001) source
- Not checked yetcites [22] Parkinson, J. A. et al. Nucleus accumbens dopamine depletion impairs both acquisition and performance of appetitive Pavlovian approach behaviour: implications for mesoaccumbens dopamine function. Behav. Brain Res. 137, 149–163 (2002) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In rats selectively-bred for differences in locomotor responses to a novel environment14, high responders to novelty (bHR) consistently learn a sign-tracking CR but low responders to novelty (bLR) consistently learn a goal-tracking CR15.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [14] Robinson, T. E. & Flagel, S. B. Dissociating the predictive and incentive motivational properties of reward-related cues through the study of individual differences. Biol. Psychiat. 65, 869–873 (2009) source
- Not checked yetcites [15] Stead, J. D. et al. Selective breeding for divergence in novelty-seeking traits: heritability and enrichment in spontaneous anxiety-related behaviors. Behav. Genet. 36, 697–712 (2006) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CS is an effective predictor in animals that learn either a sign-tracking or a goal-tracking response; it acts as an “excitor”, evoking a CR in both.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Another feature of an incentive stimulus is to be “wanted” and as such animals should work to obtain it10,16.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [10] Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E. & Aldridge, J. W. Dissecting components of reward: 'liking', 'wanting', and learning. Curr. Opin. Pharmacol. 9, 65–73 (2009) source
- Not checked yetcites [16] Flagel, S. B. et al. An animal model of genetic vulnerability to behavioral disinhibition and responsiveness to reward-related cues: implications for addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 35, 388–400 (2010) source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collectively, these data provide several lines of evidence demonstrating that dopamine does not act as a universal teaching signal in reward learning, but selectively participates in a form of stimulus-reward learning whereby Pavlovian incentive value is attributed to a CS.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: It has been difficult to determine whether dopamine mediates the predictive or the motivational properties of reward-associated cues, because these two features are often acquired together.
In the paper
“Human motivated behavior is subject to a wide span of individual differences ranging from highly deliberative to highly impulsive actions directed towards the acquisition of rewards32.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [32] Kuo, W. J., Sjostrom, T., Chen, Y. P., Wang, Y. H. & Huang, C. Y. Intuition and deliberation: two systems for strategizing in the brain. Science 324, 519–522 (2009) source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The current work demonstrates that dopamine-encoded prediction-error signals are indeed present in the nucleus accumbens of sign-trackers, but not in the accumbens of goal-trackers.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In sum, we show that dopamine is an integral part of reward learning that is specifically associated with the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: It has been difficult to determine whether dopamine mediates the predictive or the motivational properties of reward-associated cues, because these two features are often acquired together.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Previous research using site-specific dopamine antagonism20 and dopamine-specific lesions21 indicated that dopamine acts in the nucleus accumbens core to support the learning and performance of sign-tracking behavior.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Dalley, J. W. et al. Time-limited modulation of appetitive Pavlovian memory by D1 and NMDA receptors in the nucleus accumbens. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 102, 6189–6194 (2005) source
- Not checked yetcites [21] Di Ciano, P., Cardinal, R. N., Cowell, R. A., Little, S. J. & Everitt, B. J. Differential involvement of NMDA, AMPA/kainate, and dopamine receptors in the nucleus accumbens core in the acquisition and performance of pavlovian approach behavior. J. Neurosci. 21, 9471–9477 (2001) source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although these neurochemical data alone do not rule out the possibility that prediction-error signals are present in other dopamine terminal regions, the results from systemic dopamine antagonism demonstrate that intact dopamine transmission is generally not required for learning of a goal-tracking CR.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Individuals who attribute reward cues with incentive salience find it more difficult to resist such cues, a feature associated with reduced impulse control15,31.”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [15] Stead, J. D. et al. Selective breeding for divergence in novelty-seeking traits: heritability and enrichment in spontaneous anxiety-related behaviors. Behav. Genet. 36, 697–712 (2006) source
- Not checked yetcites [31] Tomie, A., Aguado, A. S., Pohorecky, L. A. & Benjamin, D. Ethanol induces impulsive-like responding in a delay-of-reward operant choice procedure: impulsivity predicts autoshaping. Psychopharmacology 139, 376–382 (1998) source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
It has been difficult to determine whether dopamine mediates the predictive or the motivational properties of reward-associated cues, because these two features are often acquired together.
“To date, it has been difficult to determine whether dopamine mediates the predictive or the motivational properties of reward-associated cues, because these two features are often acquired together.”
The paper relies on this without support.
The neural mechanisms underlying sign-tracking and goal-tracking behavior remain to be elucidated.
“The neural mechanisms underlying sign-tracking and goal-tracking behavior remain to be elucidated.”
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 the citing paper
“These attentional influences are difficult to overcome and may underlie maladaptive reactions in psychiatric disorders, such as the enhanced susceptibility of addicted patients to drug-related cues (Flagel et al., 2011).”
From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Flagel et al., 2011
In the citing paper
“Although not guided by reliability or expected information, this form of attention is a powerful mechanism, which automatically draws resources to stimuli that have intrinsic emotional or conditioned associations (Damaraju et al., 2009; Flagel et al., 2011; Hickey et al., 2010a, b; Hogarth et al., 2010; Libera and Chelazzi, 2009; Vuilleumier, 2005).”
From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Flagel et al., 2011
Statistics that don’t add up
Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“F(5,40) = 0.48, P = 0.72”
§ A selective role for dopamine in reward learning > Abstract
Reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .789
Statistics recomputed
Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.
- Doesn’t add upF(5, 40) = 0.48reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .789
“F(5,40) = 0.48, p = .72”
- ConsistentF(1, 236) = 3.02reported p = .08 · recomputed p = .084
“F(1,236)=3.02, p = .08”
- ConsistentF(1, 236) = 0.93reported p = .34 · recomputed p = .336
“F(1,236)=0.93, p = .34”
- ConsistentF(1, 33) = 4.82reported p = .04 · recomputed p = .035
“F(1,33)=4.82, p = .04”
- ConsistentF(5, 20) = 5.76reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(5,20) = 5.76, p = .002”
- ConsistentF(5, 20) = 5.18reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“F(5,20) = 5.18, p = .003”
- ConsistentF(5, 40) = 10.5reported p < .0001 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5,40) = 10.5, p < .0001”
- ConsistentF(1, 8) = 0.13reported p = .73 · recomputed p = .728
“F(1,8) = 0.13, p = .73”
- ConsistentF(5, 40) = 1.16reported p = .35 · recomputed p = .346
“F(5,40) = 1.16, p = .35”
- ConsistentF(5, 35) = 4.58reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003
“F(5,35) = 4.58, p = .003”
- ConsistentF(5, 35) = 0.94reported p = .46 · recomputed p = .467
“F(5,35) = 0.94, p = .46”
- ConsistentF(5, 40) = 6.09reported p = .0003 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5,40) = 6.09, p = .0003”
- ConsistentF(5, 40) = 5.47reported p = .0006 · recomputed p < .001
“F(5,40) = 5.47, p = .0006”
- ConsistentF(5, 40) = 0.28reported p = .92 · recomputed p = .921
“F(5,40) = 0.28, p = .92”
- ConsistentF(5, 50) = 4.43reported p = .002 · recomputed p = .002
“F(5,50) = 4.43, p = .002”
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Self-check results appear here once an independent check has confirmed them.
Citations
Cites
The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates
Paxinos, G., & Watson, C. (1983) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-63235-9 · Cited by 28,585
A neural substrate of prediction and reward
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1593 · Cited by 9,388 · cited 3×
“The following events were recorded using Med Associates software: (1) the number of lever-CS contacts, (2) the latency to the first lever-CS contact, (3) the number of food-tray entries during lever-CS presentation, and (4) the latency to the first food-tray entry during lever-CS presentation.”
The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction
Robinson, T. (1993) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p · Cited by 7,346
Self-citationThe Psychology of Learning and Motivation
(2021) · The Psychology of learning and motivation/The psychology of learning and motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(21)x0002-3 · Cited by 5,082
What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00019-8 · Cited by 4,127
Self-citationLinear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
Verbeke, G. (1997) · Lecture Notes in Statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4612-2294-1_3 · Cited by 3,506
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379 · cited 4×
“08) and (2) the latency to approach the lever-CS for bHR rats versus the”
InfluentialLinear Mixed Models for Longitudinal Data
Molenberghs, G., & Verbeke, G. N. (2000) · Springer series in statistics · doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0300-6 · Cited by 2,681
The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience
Berridge, K. C. (2007) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0578-x · Cited by 2,347
Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00007-6 · Cited by 2,129
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018 · Cited by 1,730
Drug addiction: updating actions to habits to compulsions ten years on
Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2016) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-122414-033457 · Cited by 1,225
Neuronal Reward and Decision Signals: From Theories to Data
Schultz, W. (2015) · Physiological Reviews · doi:10.1152/physrev.00023.2014 · Cited by 1,126
Computational psychiatry as a bridge from neuroscience to clinical applications
Huys, Q. J. M., Maia, T. V., & Frank, M. J. (2016) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4238 · Cited by 1,002
A causal link between prediction errors, dopamine neurons and learning
Steinberg, E. E., Keiflin, R., Boivin, J. R., Witten, I. B., Deisseroth, K. A., & Janak, P. H. (2013) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3413 · Cited by 932
Synaptic and Behavioral Profile of Multiple Glutamatergic Inputs to the Nucleus Accumbens
Britt, J. P., Benaliouad, F., McDevitt, R. A., Stuber, G. D., Wise, R. A., & Bonci, A. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.040 · Cited by 716
States of Curiosity Modulate Hippocampus-Dependent Learning via the Dopaminergic Circuit
Gruber, M. J., Gelman, B. D., & Ranganath, C. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.060 · Cited by 812
From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation.
Berridge, K. C. (2012) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.x · Cited by 700
Updating dopamine reward signals
Schultz, W. (2013) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2012.11.012 · Cited by 651
GABA Neurons of the VTA Drive Conditioned Place Aversion
Tan, K. R., Yvon, C., Turiault, M., Mirzabekov, J. J., Doehner, J., Labouèbe, G., Deisseroth, K. A., Tye, K. M., & Lüscher, C. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.02.015 · Cited by 635
“, 2008) to rats (Flagel et al., 2011), it is generally accepted that DA neuron firing codes for the prediction error of reward.”
BackgroundFuture Directions in Childhood Adversity and Youth Psychopathology
McLaughlin, K. A. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology · doi:10.1080/15374416.2015.1110823 · Cited by 576
“The associative learning mechanisms and neural circuitry underlying fear learning and reward learning have been well characterized in both animals and humans and reviewed elsewhere (Delgado, Olsson, & Phelps, 2006; Flagel et al., 2011; Johansen, Cain, Ostroff, & LeDoux, 2011; O’Doherty, 2004).”
BackgroundProlonged dopamine signalling in striatum signals proximity and value of distant rewards
Howe, M. W., Tierney, P. L., Sandberg, S. G., Phillips, P. E. M., & Graybiel, A. M. (2013) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature12475 · Cited by 565
“Transient dopaminergic responses to learned reward-predictive cues have been proposed to initiate motivated behaviours 25,26 , but with this mode of signalling alone, it is difficult to account for how dopamine acts to maintain and direct motivational resources during prolonged behaviours…”
Self-citationNeuroscience of affect: brain mechanisms of pleasure and displeasure
Berridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2013) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2013.01.017 · Cited by 532
Neural Circuitry of Reward Prediction Error
Watabe-Uchida, M., Eshel, N., & Uchida, N. (2017) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev-neuro-072116-031109 · Cited by 437
“Activities consistent with RPEs have been demonstrated in monkeys (Bayer & Glimcher 2005, Enomoto et al. 2011), rats (Day et al. 2007, Flagel et al. 2011, Hart et al. 2014, Oleson et al. 2012, Roesch et al. 2007, Stuber et al. 2008), and humans (D’Ardenne et al. 2008) and appear to faithfully…”
Mapping anhedonia onto reinforcement learning: a behavioural meta-analysis
Huys, Q. J., Pizzagalli, D. A., Bogdan, R., & Dayan, P. (2013) · Biology of Mood & Anxiety Disorders · doi:10.1186/2045-5380-3-12 · Cited by 480
Disentangling pleasure from incentive salience and learning signals in brain reward circuitry
Smith, K. S., Berridge, K. C., & Aldridge, J. W. (2011) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1101920108 · Cited by 464
A neoHebbian framework for episodic memory; role of dopamine-dependent late LTP
Lisman, J., Grace, A. A., & Duzel, E. (2011) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2011.07.006 · Cited by 465
Go and no-go learning in reward and punishment: Interactions between affect and effect
Guitart‐Masip, M., Huys, Q. J. M., Fuentemilla, L., Dayan, P., Düzel, E., & Dolan, R. J. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.04.024 · Cited by 448
Craske, M. G., Meuret, A. E., Ritz, T., Treanor, M., & Dour, H. J. (2016) · Depression and Anxiety · doi:10.1002/da.22490 · Cited by 387
Dopamine Prediction Errors in Reward Learning and Addiction: From Theory to Neural Circuitry
Keiflin, R., & Janak, P. H. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.08.037 · Cited by 401
Dopamine neurons create Pavlovian conditioned stimuli with circuit-defined motivational properties
Saunders, B. T., Richard, J. M., Margolis, E. B., & Janak, P. H. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0191-4 · Cited by 393
Adamantidis, A. R., Tsai, H.-C., Boutrel, B., Zhang, F., Stuber, G. D., Budygin, E. A., Tourino, C., Bonci, A., Deisseroth, K., & de Lecea, L. (2011) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2246-11.2011 · Cited by 357
Dissecting the diversity of midbrain dopamine neurons
Roeper, J. (2013) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2013.03.003 · Cited by 395
Anticipatory pleasure predicts motivation for reward in major depression.
Sherdell, L., Waugh, C. E., & Gotlib, I. H. (2011) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/a0024945 · Cited by 394
“Flagel et al. (2011) recorded phasic DA release from the NAcc over a six-day Pavlovian conditioning period.”
BackgroundModel-based and model-free Pavlovian reward learning: Revaluation, revision, and revelation
Dayan, P., & Berridge, K. C. (2014) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0277-8 · Cited by 357
“Liking” and “wanting” in eating and food reward: Brain mechanisms and clinical implications
Morales, I., & Berridge, K. C. (2020) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113152 · Cited by 346
Cognitive Training in Mental Disorders: Update and Future Directions
Keshavan, M. S., Vinogradov, S., Rumsey, J. M., Sherrill, J. T., & Wagner, A. (2014) · American Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2013.13081075 · Cited by 315
Everitt, B. J. (2014) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12644 · Cited by 318
“The amygdala–NAcb system also mediates pavlovian approach behaviour (Parkinson et al., 1999, 2000; Flagel et al., 2011) and pavlovianinstrumental transfer, or PIT (Hall et al., 2001; Corbit & Balleine, 2005).”
BackgroundComputational psychiatry: towards a mathematically informed understanding of mental illness
Adams, R. A., Huys, Q. J. M., & Roiser, J. P. (2015) · Journal of Neurology, Neurosurgery & Psychiatry · doi:10.1136/jnnp-2015-310737 · Cited by 285
A Unified Framework for Dopamine Signals across Timescales
Kim, H. R., Malik, A. N., Mikhael, J. G., Bech, P., Tsutsui‐Kimura, I., Sun, F., Zhang, Y., Li, Y., Watabe‐Uchida, M., Gershman, S. J., et al. (2020) · Cell · doi:10.1016/j.cell.2020.11.013 · Cited by 308
Quantifying Individual Variation in the Propensity to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues
Meyer, P., Lovic, V., Saunders, B. T., Yager, L. M., Flagel, S. B., Morrow, J. D., & Robinson, T. E. (2012) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0038987 · Cited by 325
Self-citationThe role of dopamine in the accumbens core in the expression of Pavlovian‐conditioned responses
Saunders, B. T., & Robinson, T. E. (2012) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08217.x · Cited by 325
“The fact that dopamine antagonism had little effect on the performance (and learning; Flagel et al., 2011b) of a GT CR suggests, of course, that for GTs the CS did not function as an incentive stimulus.”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationCan Pornography be Addictive? An fMRI Study of Men Seeking Treatment for Problematic Pornography Use
Gola, M., Wordecha, M., Sescousse, G., Lew-Starowicz, M., Kossowski, B., Wypych, M., Makeig, S., Potenza, M. N., & Marchewka, A. (2017) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2017.78 · Cited by 299
Hart, A. S., Rutledge, R. B., Glimcher, P. W., & Phillips, P. E. M. (2014) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2489-13.2014 · Cited by 306
“A large number of studies have now correlated dopaminergic neural activity with the reward prediction error (RPE) term in temporal difference models of learning (Sutton, 1988, Montague et al., 1996, Schultz et al., 1997, Waelti et al., 2001, Flagel et al., 2011, Steinberg et al., 2013).”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationReversal learning as a measure of impulsive and compulsive behavior in addictions
Izquierdo, A., & Jentsch, J. D. (2011) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2579-7 · Cited by 313
Action versus valence in decision making
Guitart-Masip, M., Duzel, E., Dolan, R., & Dayan, P. (2014) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2014.01.003 · Cited by 270
O'Hara, C., Campbell, I. C., & Schmidt, U. H. (2015) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.02.012 · Cited by 271
Lally, N., Nugent, A. C., Luckenbaugh, D. A., Ameli, R., Roiser, J. P., & Zarate, C. A. (2014) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/tp.2014.105 · Cited by 271
The impact of sugar consumption on stress driven, emotional and addictive behaviors
Jacques, A., Chaaya, N., Beecher, K., Ali, S. A., Belmer, A., & Bartlett, S. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.05.021 · Cited by 271
Attention, learning, and the value of information
Gottlieb, J. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.09.034 · Cited by 241
Neural substrates of cue reactivity: association with treatment outcomes and relapse
Courtney, K. E., Schacht, J. P., Hutchison, K. E., Roche, D. J. O., & Ray, L. A. (2015) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.12314 · Cited by 256
Dopaminergic basis of salience dysregulation in psychosis
Winton-Brown, T. T., Fusar-Poli, P., Ungless, M. A., & Howes, O. D. (2014) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2013.11.003 · Cited by 231
Lawrence, N. S., Hinton, E. C., Parkinson, J. A., & Lawrence, A. D. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.06.070 · Cited by 242
“The NAcc is associatedwith individual differences in incentive salience attribution to food cues in animals (Flagel et al., 2011) and with individual differences in food motivation in humans (Beaver et al., 2006).”
Action initiation shapes mesolimbic dopamine encoding of future rewards
Syed, E. C. J., Grima, L. L., Magill, P. J., Bogacz, R., Brown, P., & Walton, M. E. (2015) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.4187 · Cited by 241
Dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens core signals perceived saliency
Kutlu, M. G., Zachry, J. E., Melugin, P. R., Cajigas, S. A., Chevee, M. F., Kelly, S. J., Kutlu, B., Tian, L., Siciliano, C. A., & Calipari, E. S. (2021) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2021.08.052 · Cited by 238
On the motivational properties of reward cues: Individual differences
Robinson, T. E., Yager, L. M., Cogan, E. S., & Saunders, B. T. (2013) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.05.040 · Cited by 261
Self-citationAberrant learning and memory in addiction
Torregrossa, M. M., Corlett, P. R., & Taylor, J. R. (2011) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2011.02.014 · Cited by 223
Rats prone to attribute incentive salience to reward cues are also prone to impulsive action
Lovic, V., Saunders, B. T., Yager, L. M., & Robinson, T. E. (2011) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.04.006 · Cited by 228
Self-citationBadrinarayan, A., Wescott, S. A., Vander Weele, C. M., Saunders, B. T., Couturier, B. E., Maren, S., & Aragona, B. J. (2012) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3557-12.2012 · Cited by 225
Rodeberg, N. T., Sandberg, S. G., Johnson, J. A., Phillips, P. E. M., & Wightman, R. M. (2017) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/acschemneuro.6b00393 · Cited by 231
Self-citationDopaminergic control of the striatum for high-level cognition
Cools, R. (2011) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2011.04.002 · Cited by 232
“Given that both the Pavlovian ‘critic’ and the instrumental ‘actor’ might be further subdivided in model-based and model-free components [7], this arrangement allows for multiple ways in which dopamine could affect model-based, goal-direct behavior via altering model-free Pavlovian control [2 ,62].”
Spiking Neural Networks: A Survey
Nunes, J. D., Carvalho, M., Carneiro, D., & Cardoso, J. S. (2022) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2022.3179968 · Cited by 254
“For example, it was demonstrated that dopamine acts as a reward signal, affecting synaptic plasticity [151, 152, 153].”
BackgroundPeciña, S., & Berridge, K. C. (2013) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12174 · Cited by 216
DNA methylation regulates associative reward learning
Day, J. J., Childs, D. S., Karlsson, M. G., Kibe, M., Moulden, J., Song, E. Y., Tahir, A., & Sweatt, J. D. (2013) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn.3504 · Cited by 217
Mesolimbic dopamine release is linked to symptom severity in pathological gambling
Joutsa, J., Johansson, J., Niemelä, S., Ollikainen, A., Hirvonen, M. M., Piepponen, P., Arponen, E., Alho, H., Voon, V., Rinne, J. O., et al. (2012) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2012.02.006 · Cited by 209
“Indeed, it has been shown in rats that dopamine acts selectively in a form of stimulus-reward learning in which incentive salience is assigned to reward cues (Flagel et al., 2011).”
BackgroundIndividual Variation in the Motivational Properties of Cocaine
Saunders, B. T., & Robinson, T. E. (2011) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2011.48 · Cited by 206
Self-citationIncreasing dopamine D2 receptor expression in the adult nucleus accumbens enhances motivation
Trifilieff, P., Feng, B., Urizar, E., Winiger, V, Ward, R. D., Taylor, K. M., Martinez, D., Moore, H., Balsam, P. D., Simpson, E. H., et al. (2013) · Molecular Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/mp.2013.57 · Cited by 206
Neural Mechanisms of Incentive Salience in Naturalistic Human Vision
Hickey, C., & Peelen, M. V. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.12.049 · Cited by 212
Saddoris, M. P., Cacciapaglia, F., Wightman, R. M., & Carelli, R. M. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2344-15.2015 · Cited by 217
The Neuroscience of Learning: Beyond the Hebbian Synapse
Gallistel, C. R., & Matzel, L. D. (2012) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143807 · Cited by 212
Machine learning and big data in psychiatry: toward clinical applications
Rutledge, R. B., Chekroud, A. M., & Huys, Q. J. M. (2019) · Current Opinion in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.conb.2019.02.006 · Cited by 206
“For example, past cocaine use might down-regulate dopamine function [4], which in turn influences learning and future decisions [5] with consequences for future mental health.”
BackgroundInformation Processing in Decision-Making Systems
van der Meer, M. A. A., Kurth-Nelson, Z. L., & Redish, A. D. (2012) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858411435128 · Cited by 190
The Meaning of Behavior: Discriminating Reflex and Volition in the Brain
Balleine, B. W. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.09.024 · Cited by 186
Microglia Disrupt Mesolimbic Reward Circuitry in Chronic Pain
Taylor, A. M. W., Castonguay, A., Taylor, A. J., Murphy, N. P., Ghogha, A., Cook, C. P., Xue, L., Olmstead, M. C., Koninck, Y. D., Evans, C. J., et al. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4036-14.2015 · Cited by 196
Dalton, G. L., Wang, N. Y., Phillips, A. G., & Floresco, S. B. (2016) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3366-15.2016 · Cited by 184
“This increase in choice latency may be related to alterations in phasic dopamine transmission which can invigorate approach behavior toward reward-related cues (Flagel et al., 2011).”
BackgroundNeural vulnerability factors that increase risk for future weight gain
Stice, E., & Yokum, S. (2016) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/bul0000044 · Cited by 179
Lawn, W., Freeman, T. P., Pope, R. A., Joye, A., Harvey, L. A., Hindocha, C., Mokrysz, C., Moss, A., Wall, M. B., Bloomfield, M., et al. (2016) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-016-4383-x · Cited by 182
Influence of reward motivation on human declarative memory
Lombard, E., Bavelier, D., & Schwartz, S. (2015) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.11.015 · Cited by 191
Garbusow, M., Schad, D. J., Sebold, M., Friedel, E., Bernhardt, N. R., Koch, S., Steinacher, B., Kathmann, N., Geurts, D. E. M., Sommer, C., et al. (2015) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.12243 · Cited by 178
Synergy of Distinct Dopamine Projection Populations in Behavioral Reinforcement
Heymann, G., Jo, Y. S., Reichard, K. L., McFarland, N., Chavkin, C., Palmiter, R. D., Soden, M. E., & Zweifel, L. S. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.11.024 · Cited by 165
“Although mice do not typically approach the CS (lever-press), a behavior referred to as sign-tracking (Flagel et al., 2011), they will rapidly acquire an instrumental response for reward delivery following Pavlovian conditioning that reflects a type of autoshaping (Gore and Zweifel, 2013).”
BackgroundReward uncertainty enhances incentive salience attribution as sign-tracking
Anselme, P., Robinson, M. J. F., & Berridge, K. C. (2013) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2012.10.006 · Cited by 170
What and when to "want"? Amygdala-based focusing of incentive salience upon sugar and sex
Mahler, S. V., & Berridge, K. C. (2012) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2588-6 · Cited by 170
Oleson, E. B., Beckert, M., Morra, J. T., Lansink, C. S., Cachope, R., Abdullah, R. A., Loriaux, A. L., Schetters, D., Pattij, T., Roitman, M. F., et al. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2011.11.018 · Cited by 171
Understanding Addiction Using Animal Models
Kuhn, B. N., Kalivas, P. W., & Bobadilla, A. (2019) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2019.00262 · Cited by 174
Implantable aptamer–field-effect transistor neuroprobes for in vivo neurotransmitter monitoring
Zhao, C., Cheung, K. M., Huang, I.-W., Yang, H., Nakatsuka, N., Liu, W., Cao, Y. F., Man, T., Weiss, P. S., Monbouquette, H. G., et al. (2021) · Science Advances · doi:10.1126/sciadv.abj7422 · Cited by 171
“Fast scan cyclic voltammetry (FSCV) (36, 37, 62-67) 1.”
Neurobiological basis of individual variation in stimulus-reward learning
Flagel, S. B., & Robinson, T. E. (2017) · Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.cobeha.2016.12.004 · Cited by 165
Self-citationIndividual variation in resisting temptation: Implications for addiction
Saunders, B. T., & Robinson, T. E. (2013) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.02.008 · Cited by 177
Self-citationSensitivity of Locus Ceruleus Neurons to Reward Value for Goal-Directed Actions
Bouret, S., & Richmond, B. J. (2015) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.4553-14.2015 · Cited by 163
“The dopaminergic system is related strongly to the incentive effects of reward (Liu et al., 2004; Pessiglione et al., 2006; Berridge 2007; Flagel et al., 2011), whereas the central noradrenergic system is associated with arousal, attention, or cognitive flexibility (Berridge and Waterhouse, 2003;…”
BackgroundStriatal ups and downs: Their roles in vulnerability to addictions in humans
Leyton, M., & Vezina, P. (2013) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2013.01.018 · Cited by 165
Cue-Evoked Cocaine "Craving": Role of Dopamine in the Accumbens Core
Saunders, B. T., Yager, L. M., & Robinson, T. E. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0450-13.2013 · Cited by 155
Self-citationEstradiol, Dopamine and Motivation
Yoest, K. E., Cummings, J., & Becker, J. B. (2015) · Central Nervous System Agents in Medicinal Chemistry · doi:10.2174/1871524914666141226103135 · Cited by 161
Flagel, S. B., Cameron, C., Pickup, K. N., Watson, S. J., Akil, H., & Robinson, T. E. (2011) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2011.09.004 · Cited by 153
Self-citationWilluhn, I., Tose, A. J., Wanat, M. J., Hart, A. S., Hollon, N. G., Phillips, P. E. M., Schwarting, R. K. W., & Wöhr, M. (2014) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1060-14.2014 · Cited by 159
Self-citationLearning from Action: Reconsidering Movement Signaling in Midbrain Dopamine Neuron Activity
Coddington, L. T., & Dudman, J. T. (2019) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2019.08.036 · Cited by 150
Cholinergic Control over Attention in Rats Prone to Attribute Incentive Salience to Reward Cues
Paolone, G., Angelakos, C. C., Meyer, P., Robinson, T. E., & Sarter, M. F. (2013) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0709-13.2013 · Cited by 142
“In STs (but not GTs) a food cue evokes a phasic dopamine signal in the core of the accumbens, and dopamine is necessary for the learning and performance of sign-tracking but not goaltracking behavior (Flagel et al., 2011; Saunders and Robinson, 2012).”
BackgroundSelf-citationMotivation and Self-Regulation in Addiction: A Call for Convergence
Köpetz, C. E., Lejuez, C. W., Wiers, R. W., & Kruglanski, A. W. (2013) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691612457575 · Cited by 138
“…substance use, there is substantial effort to understand the biological, personality, and contextual variables that may enhance individuals’ vulnerability to addiction (see Redish, Jensen, & Johnson, 2008, for an extensive analysis, but also Flagel et al., 2011; Robinson & Berridge, 2003).”
BackgroundDiFeliceantonio, A. G., & Berridge, K. C. (2012) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2012.02.032 · Cited by 141
Overriding Phasic Dopamine Signals Redirects Action Selection during Risk/Reward Decision Making
Stopper, C. M., Tse, M. T. L., Montes, D. R., Wiedman, C. R., & Floresco, S. B. (2014) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.033 · Cited by 136
Sign Tracking, but Not Goal Tracking, is Resistant to Outcome Devaluation
Morrison, S. E., Bamkole, M. A., & Nicola, S. M. (2015) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2015.00468 · Cited by 137
“Furthermore, sign-tracking (but not goal-tracking) behavior can be blocked by dopamine receptor antagonist injection in the NAc (Di Ciano et al., 2001; Flagel et al., 2011b; Saunders and Robinson, 2012) or by dopamine depletion of the NAc (Parkinson et al., 2002).”
BackgroundInfluentialWassum, K. M., Ostlund, S. B., Balleine, B. W., & Maidment, N. T. (2011) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.2229311 · Cited by 144
“learning sessions attenuated the expression of a goal-tracking conditioned response, similar to the result we show here on goal approach (Flagel et al. 2011).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialPutting desire on a budget: dopamine and energy expenditure, reconciling reward and resources
Beeler, J. A., Frazier, C. R. M., & Zhuang, X. (2012) · Frontiers in Integrative Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnint.2012.00049 · Cited by 136
Fitzpatrick, C. J., Gopalakrishnan, S., Cogan, E. S., Yager, L. M., Meyer, P., Lovic, V., Saunders, B. T., Parker, C. C., Gonzales, N. M., Aryee, E., et al. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0075042 · Cited by 133
Self-citationThe costs and benefits of brain dopamine for cognitive control
Cools, R. (2016) · Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews Cognitive Science · doi:10.1002/wcs.1401 · Cited by 164
Dopamine, reward learning, and active inference
FitzGerald, T. H. B., Dolan, R. J., & Friston, K. (2015) · Frontiers in Computational Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fncom.2015.00136 · Cited by 112
Ou, Y., Buchanan, A. M., Witt, C. E., & Hashemi, P. (2019) · Analytical Methods · doi:10.1039/c9ay00055k · Cited by 132
Reinforcement-learning in fronto-striatal circuits
Averbeck, B. B., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2021) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-021-01108-0 · Cited by 132
Wenzel, J. M., Rauscher, N. A., Cheer, J. F., & Oleson, E. B. (2015) · ACS Chemical Neuroscience · doi:10.1021/cn500255p · Cited by 131
Response inhibition and its relation to multidimensional impulsivity
Wilbertz, T., Deserno, L., Horstmann, A., Neumann, J., Villringer, A., Heinze, H.-J., Boehler, C. N., & Schlagenhauf, F. (2014) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2014.09.021 · Cited by 128
“Interestingly, impulsive (‘sign-tracking’) rats express phasic dopamine reward prediction errors in Nucleus accumbens, whereas low impulsive (‘goal-tracking’) rats do not (Flagel et al., 2011).”
Dopamine ups and downs in vulnerability to addictions: a neurodevelopmental model
Leyton, M., & Vezina, P. (2014) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2014.04.002 · Cited by 127
Flagel, S. B., Waselus, M., Clinton, S. M., Watson, S. J., & Akil, H. (2013) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2013.04.033 · Cited by 131
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Flagel, S. B., Clark, J. J., Robinson, T. E., Mayo, L., Czuj, A., Willuhn, I., Akers, C. A., Clinton, S. M., Phillips, P. E. M., & Akil, H.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Corresponding author
- Phillips, Paul E. M.
- Akil, Huda
- ORCID
- Venue
- Nature
- Published
- 2010-12-08
- Volume
- 469
- Issue
- 7328
- Pages
- 53-57
- ISSN
- 0028-0836 (ISSN-L)
- 1476-4687
- PMC
- PMC3058375
- OpenAlex
- W2116049552
- Semantic Scholar
- 38476c39379a177d3b95fa22125a1a7f09116670
- Cited by
- 1,026
- References
- 41
- Citations by year
- 2026: 43 · 2025: 45 · 2024: 56 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 63 · 2021: 57 · 2020: 101 · 2019: 60 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 58 · 2016: 84 · 2015: 82 · 2014: 80 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 59
- FWCI
- 24.20
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Nature (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- Funders
- National Institutes of Health (2t32da007278-31)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R00MH085859, R01MH079292)
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (F32-DA24540, P01DA021633, T32-DA07278, T32-DA007278, F32DA024540, R37DA004294, R37 DA04294, R01DA027858)
- 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
- dopamine, incentive salience, classical conditioning, incentive motivation, food cues, selective breeding, dopamine receptor blockade, cyclic voltammetry, individual differences, impulse control disorders, drug addiction
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Dopamine, Flupenthixol, Food, Disruptive, Impulse Control, and Conduct Disorders, Learning, Male, Microelectrodes, Models, Neurological, Motivation, Synaptic Transmission, Nucleus Accumbens, Phenotype, Probability, Reward, Signal Transduction, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Dopamine Antagonists, Rats
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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
