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
Items 801–900 of 998
Contexts facilitate dynamic value encoding in the mesolimbic dopamine systemPreprint
Fraser, K. M., Collins, V. L., Wolff, A. R., Ottenheimer, D. J., Bornhoft, K. N., Pat, F., Chen, B. J., Janak, P. H., & Saunders, B. T. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.11.05.565687 · Cited by 2
Mkrtchian, A., Qiu, Z., Abir, Y., Erdmann, T., Dercon, Q., Sedlinská, T., Browning, M. D., Costello, H., & Huys, Q. J. M. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.01.08.631868 · Cited by 2
Effects of ad libitum feeding and prefeeding on operant responding in sign- and goal-tracking rats
Flynn, A. N., Lupfer, G. J., & Murphy, E. S. (2020) · Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/j.lmot.2020.101686 · Cited by 1
Strand, P. S. (2022) · The Psychological Record · doi:10.1007/s40732-021-00501-x · Cited by 1
Associative learning impairments in rats lacking dopamine transporter
Savchenko, A. A., Sukhanov, I., Ulitina, A. S., Драволина, О. А., Владимировна, Б. И., Emelianov, A. K., & Zvartau, E. E. (2022) · The Scientific Notes of the Pavlov University · doi:10.24884/1607-4181-2022-29-1-18-27 · Cited by 1
Carruthers, P. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198906131.003.0003 · Cited by 1
Animal Models of Neurobehavioral Trait Dimensions
Bartling-John, E., Leong, K.-C., Ross, C. N., Colman, R. J., & Phillips, K. A. (2025) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-77967-1_3 · Cited by 1
Impact of temporal uncertainty on sign-tracking behavior.
Kaneko, R., Simpson, E. H., & Balsam, P. D. (2025) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000394 · Cited by 1
A Pavlovian, conditioned-reinforcement approach to reducing impulsive choice
Garland, K. C., & Madden, G. J. (2025) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2025.105208 · Cited by 4
Harris, H. M., Woods, A., Chen, Y., & Arco, A. D. (2025) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0229-25.2025 · Cited by 2
Kutlu, M. G., Gabriel, S. A. C., Tat, J., Zachry, J. E., & Calipari, E. S. (2025) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0358-25.2025 · Cited by 1
Shang, Z., Zhang, J., Li, M., Li, S., Wang, Y., & Yang, L. (2026) · eNeuro · doi:10.1523/eneuro.0355-25.2026 · Cited by 1
Effects of L‐Tyrosine Ingestion on Endurance Performance in Mentally Fatigued Cyclists
Júnior, L. J. F. S., Boullosa, D. A., Dias, C. V., & Fortes, L. D. S. (2026) · European Journal of Sport Science · doi:10.1002/ejsc.70150 · Cited by 2
Alcohol use disorder and emotional processing patterns: Insights from a systematic review
Camacho-Ruiz, J. A., Galvez-Sánchez, C. M., Martins, A., Jiménez-Ros, A. M., & Gras, R. M. L. (2026) · Psychiatry Research · doi:10.1016/j.psychres.2026.117165 · Cited by 1
Tachykinin 1 neurons in the lateral habenula signal negative reward prediction error
Suzuki, K. E., Seagoe, T. A., Holcomb, B., Kuyat, J. R., & Sylwestrak, E. (2026) · Current Biology · doi:10.1016/j.cub.2026.04.032 · Cited by 2
Nalmefen – Wirksamkeit und praktische Anwendung
Reimer, J. (2014) · Die Psychiatrie · doi:10.1055/s-0038-1670754 · Cited by 1
Esumi, S., Sagara, H., Nakamoto, A., Kawasaki, Y., Gomita, Y., & Sendo, T. (2013) · Okayama Igakkai Zasshi (Journal of Okayama Medical Association) · doi:10.4044/joma.125.205 · Cited by 1
Dopamine and the Adolescent Brain: Do Errors in Prediction Make the Difference?
Pauli, W. M., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2016) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2016.03.2105 · Cited by 1
Madras, B. K. (2014) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-418679-8.00001-0 · Cited by 1
Esumi, S., Kawasaki, Y., Gomita, Y., Kitamura, Y., & Sendo, T. (2014) · PubMed · doi:10.18926/amo/52893 · Cited by 1
“Dopamine elevations during reward acquisition are reduced along with learning about the relevance between reward and cue prediction [22, 23].”
BackgroundImproving the Collection and Calibration of Voltammetric Measurements of Striatal Dopamine Release
Rodeberg, N. T. (2019) · Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · doi:10.17615/j4na-tr87 · Cited by 1
Passionate Love Addiction: An Evolutionary Survival Mechanism That Can Go Terribly Wrong
Bolshakova, M., Fisher, H. E., Aubin, H., & Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.026 · Cited by 2
Neurobiology and Cognitive Neuroscience of Hedonic Eating
Wilcox, C. E. (2021) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-83078-6_8 · Cited by 1
Cieślak, P. E. (2021) · Postępy Biochemii · doi:10.18388/pb.2021_395 · Cited by 1
Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.003 · Cited by 1
Value Modulation of Self-Defeating Impulsivity
Liu, Z., Reiner, R., Loewenstein, Y., & Lottem, E. (2024) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2024.09.017 · Cited by 1
Interactions between memory and reward systems
Poh, J.-H., & Adcock, R. A. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-15754-7.00049-3 · Cited by 1
Lapointe, T., Baidoo, N., Renda, B., & Leri, F. (2025) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2025.110651 · Cited by 1
Consolidación de la Memoria y Sustrato Nervioso del Refuerzo
Redolar-Ripoll, E. (2012) · Revista Argentina de Ciencias del Comportamiento ( RACC ) · doi:10.32348/1852.4206.v4.n2.5174 · Cited by 1
VOLTAMMETRIC ANALYSIS OF LOSS AND GAIN OF DOPAMINE FUNCTION
Garris, P. A., & Keefe, K. A. (2014) · WORLD SCIENTIFIC eBooks · doi:10.1142/9789814619776_0013 · Cited by 1
Crego, A. C. G., Chang, S. E., Butler, W. N., & Smith, K. S. (2017) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781107281875.021 · Cited by 1
Depression: The Importance of Etiology and the Involvement of Dopaminergic Reward System
Kong, R. (2019) · doi:10.35248/2167-1044.19.8.347 · Cited by 1
Adolescent Drug Misuse Prevention: Challenges in School-Based Programming
Scheier, L. M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.021 · Cited by 1
Measurement, Prevention, and Treatment of Exercise Addiction
Hausenblas, H. A., Mann, D. T. Y., & Downs, D. S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.036 · Cited by 2
Martyniuk, K. M., Dandeneau, M., Balsam, P. D., & Kellendonk, C. (2021) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/bne0000403 · Cited by 1
Striatonigrostriatal Spirals in Addiction
Sivils, A., Wang, J. Q., & Chu, X. (2021) · Frontiers in Neural Circuits · doi:10.3389/fncir.2021.803501 · Cited by 1
“One could then hypothesize that SNS spirals are necessary pieces of the neural framework which allows for conditioning, and eventually habituation (Flagel et al., 2010; Peak et al., 2018; Lipton et al., 2019).”
BackgroundAddictive Games: Case Study on Multi-Armed Bandit Game
Kang, X., Ri, H., Khalid, M. N. A., et al. (2021) · Information · doi:10.3390/info12120521 · Cited by 1
The Effects of Chronic Cocaine Self-Administration on Cognition and Brain Metabolism
Porter, J. N. (2012) · D-Scholarship@Pitt (University of Pittsburgh) · Cited by 1
Dorsomedial Striatal Control of Cue-Directed Versus Goal-Directed Pavlovian Approach Behavior
O'Donnell, E. G. (2013) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 1
Mecânica estatística de sistemas de agentes bayesianos: aplicação à teoria dos fundamentos morais
Cesar, J. E. D. S. (2014) · Digital Library of Theses and Dissertations (Universidade de São Paulo) · doi:10.11606/t.43.2014.tde-30102014-090629 · Cited by 1
Aging and functional reorganization of striatum- and Medial-Temporal Lobe-dependent memory systems
Schuck, N. W. (2013) · doi:10.18452/16773 · Cited by 1
“…learning (Shohamy, Myers, Grossman, Sage, & Gluck, 2005; Karabanov et al., 2010; Simon et al., 2011), skill learning (Molina-Luna et al., 2009), reward processing (Flagel et al., 2011; Schultz, 2002) and multi cue category learning (Moustafa & Gluck, 2011; Shohamy, Myers, Kalanithi, & Gluck, 2008).”
Elucidating the Role of the Paraventricular Nucleus of the Thalamus in Cue-Motivated Behavior.
Haight, J. L. (2016) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 1
Winkelmeier, L., Filosa, C., Scheller, M. F., Hartig, R., Sack, M., Becker, R., Wolf, D., Reinwald, J., Gerchen, M. F., Sartorius, A., et al. (2021) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2021.02.22.432268 · Cited by 1
Bonometti, V., Ruiz, M. J., Drachen, A., & Wade, A. R. (2021) · arXiv (Cornell University) · Cited by 1
Critical periods when dopamine controls behavioral responding during Pavlovian learningPreprint
Lefner, M. J., Stelly, C. E., Fonzi, K. M., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.02.28.482312 · Cited by 1
Conserved reward-mediated, reinforcement-learning mechanisms in Pavlovian and instrumental tasksPreprint
Afshar, N. M., Cinotti, F., Martin, D., Khamassi, M., Calu, D. J., Taylor, J. R., & Groman, S. M. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.06.12.495805 · Cited by 1
Bacharach, S. Z., Martin, D. A., Stapf, C. A., et al. (2022) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2022.07.22.501038 · Cited by 1
Reward-Based Learning, Model-Based and Model-Free
Huys, Q. J. M., & Seriès, P. (2022) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-1006-0_674 · Cited by 1
Bender, B. N., Stringfield, S. J., & Torregrossa, M. M. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.07.24.550364 · Cited by 1
“It is well-established that dopamine release in the nucleus accumbens core occurs upon the presentation of a reward-predictive or reward-associated cue (51, 71).”
BackgroundVTA Dopamine Neurons Drive Spatiotemporally Heterogeneous Striatal Dopamine Signals During LearningPreprint
Engel, L., Wolff, A. R., Blake, M. L., Collins, V. L., Sinha, S., & Saunders, B. T. (2023) · SSRN Electronic Journal · doi:10.2139/ssrn.4530804 · Cited by 1
Levodopa reduces consumption of multiple classes of addictive substances in ratsPreprint
Farero, R. D., Holtz, N. A., Lee, S. J., Kruse, L. C., Clark, J. J., & Phillips, P. E. M. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.12.14.570833 · Cited by 1
Self-citationGeurts, D. E. M., den Ouden, H. E. M., Swart, J. C., Froböse, M. I., Fallon, S. J., Cook, J. L., & Cools, R. (2026) · eLife · doi:10.31234/osf.io/esf2c · Cited by 1
Geurts, D. E. M., den Ouden, H. E. M., Swart, J. C., Froböse, M. I., Fallon, S. J., Cook, J. L., & Cools, R. (2024) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.98917.1 · Cited by 1
Tachykinin 1-expressing neurons in the lateral habenula signal negative reward prediction errorPreprint
Suzuki, K. E., Seagoe, T. A., Holcomb, B., Kuyat, J. R., & Sylwestrak, E. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2025.10.11.680558 · Cited by 1
The effects of apomorphine in pigeons: Some supplementary notes
Delius, J. D., & Acerbo, A. M. (2016) · KOPS (University of Konstanz) · doi:10.13140/rg.2.1.4497.1129 · Cited by 1
Basal Ganglia Regulation of Motivated Behaviors
Rossi, M. A. (2015) · DukeSpace (Duke University)
Individual differences in cocaine's locomotor activating effects predicts reward-directed behavior
Venheim, E. R. (2011) · Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship (University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign)
Dopamine Modulation of Choice Behavior Following Unexpected Reward Omission
Porter‐Stransky, K. A. (2014) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Avances y Desafíos en Neuropsicología
Godoy, J. C. (2012) · Redalyc (Universidad Autónoma del Estado de México) · doi:10.30882/1852.4206.v4.n2.5168
Decision Making Gone Awry: Dorsal striatum, decision-making, and addiction
Regier, P. S. (2015) · University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy (University of Minnesota)
Chauhan, R. B. (2012) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Remus, M. L. (2015) · KiltHub Repository · doi:10.1184/r1/6715358
Individual Variation in the Motivational Properties of Reward Cues.
Saunders, B. T. (2013) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Kingwell, K. (2011) · Nature reviews. Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2981
Comparison of different techniques for mouse transgenesis
Almeida, J. (2012) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
A DUAL PATHWAY APPROACH FOR SOLVING THE SPATIAL CREDIT ASSIGNMENT PROBLEM IN A BIOLOGICAL WAY
Connor, P. C. (2013) · Library and Archives Canada (Government of Canada)
Baker, T. W. (2013) · QSpace (Queen's University Library)
Stice, E. M., Yokum, S., & Burger, K. S. (2014) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-12766-8_6
“Theorists posit this shift during cue-reward learning acts to either update knowledge regarding the predictive cues or attribute reward value to the cues themselves thereby guiding behavior [36–39].”
BackgroundMessias, J. P. M. (2014) · Portuguese National Funding Agency for Science, Research and Technology (RCAAP Project by FCT)
Individual Variation in the Extent to Which Drug Cues Acquire Control Over Motivated Behavior.
Yager, L. M. (2014) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
PhasicDopamineReleaseintheNucleusAccumbensin ResponsetoPro-Social50kHzUltrasonicVocalizationsin Rats
Wanat, M. J., Hart, A. S., Hollon, N. G., Phillips, M. E., & Schwarting, W. (2014)
Diminished Dopamine: Timing, Neuroanatomy, or Drug History?
Fraser, K. M., & Haight, J. L. (2016) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.0731-16.2016
“Previous work has shown that dopamine transmission in the NAc core is linked to, and necessary for, the acquisition and expression of sign-tracking behavior (Flagel et al., 2011; Saunders and Robinson, 2012).”
BackgroundGodini, L., Lelli, L., Campone, B., Ciampi, E., Corsi, E., Ramella‐Cravaro, V., & Ballerini, A. (2016)
Effects of Adolescent Caffeine Consumption on Addictive Behaviors in Adulthood
Palumbo, M. P. (2015) · CU Scholar (University of Colorado Boulder)
The Role of the Opioid System in Reward Responsiveness
Eikemo, M. (2012) · NORA - Norwegian Open Research Archives
Peciña, S., & Berridge, K. C. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780199330454.003.0007
Byrom, N., & Murphy, R. A. (2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118650813.ch3
Brain-Based Drivers and Consequences of Hedonic Overeating
Burger, K. S., Kantak, P. A., & Sanders, A. J. (2015) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780199330454.003.0006
Examining the effects of reward and punishment on incidental learning
Freedberg, M., Hazeltine, E., Duff, M., McMurray, B., Voss, M., & Darling, W. (2016) · doi:10.17077/etd.b4zjzeio
“Alongside this finding there is also evidence that dopamine may not actually be involved in the binding of S-R information so much as the attachment of incentive salience to a stimulus (Flagel et al., 2011; see also Berridge 2007).”
BackgroundBrain Computations in Schizophrenia
Adams, R. A., & Friston, K. J. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-801829-3.00024-0
Towards biofeedback-controlled self-rewarding learning with mobile devices
Szegletes, L., & Forstner, B. (2012) · IEEE International Conference on Cognitive Infocommunications · doi:10.1109/coginfocom.2012.6421998
Reward and Decision Encoding in Basal Ganglia
Tian, J., Uchida, N., & Eshel, N. (2016) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-805308-9.00005-1
Ting‐A‐Kee, R. A. (2012) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
Drug and non-drug reward processing in cigarette and cannabis users
Lawn, W. (2016) · UCL Discovery (University College London)
Biback, C. (2015) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
The Effects of Early Social Deprivation on Appetitive Motivation in Rats
Lomanowska, A. M. (2012) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
The Neural Encoding of Reward in the Striatal-Pallidal Circuitry
Chan, C. L. (2017) · e-Publications@Marquette (Marquette University)
Modifying Memories: Parsing Motivational and Predictive Value
Cogan, E. S. (2016) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
The relationship between personality and cognitionin the fowl, Gallus gallus
Zidar, J. (2017) · doi:10.3384/diss.diva-140361
“Dopamine is an important part of the reward system that is involved in learning about rewards and seeking rewards (Wise 2004; Flagel et al. 2011), norepinephrine is involved in perception, learning and memory (Hu 2007; Berridge 2008), and serotonin is involved in many aspects of brain function and behaviour (Boureau e…”
BackgroundInfluentialGuy, E. G. (2014) · TSpace (University of Toronto)
An investigation of the neural circuitry of cued alcohol behaviors in P and Wistar rats
McCane, A. M. (2017) · Purdue e-Pubs (Purdue University System) · doi:10.7912/c2f36s
Dopamine Transients in the Ventral Tegmental Area Attenuate Aversive Prediction Error
Mahmud, A. (2018) · Spectrum Research Repository (Concordia University)
The Importance of the Temporal Pattern of Drug Use in Addiction
Kawa, A. (2018) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Cocaine Choice: A Novel Procedure for Investigating Neuronal Activation Mediating Cocaine Preference
Chow, J. J. (2018) · UKnowledge (University of Kentucky) · doi:10.13023/etd.2018.497
Occipito-Temporal Sensitivity and Emotional Faces in Alcohol Use Disorder
Patel, S. S., Müller‐Oehring, E. M., & Schulte, T. (2019) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-813125-1.00028-3
Taylor, S. (2019) · Carolina Digital Repository (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill) · doi:10.17615/b787-ye03
Joyner, M. A. (2019) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Pavlovian conditioning: How excitation and inhibition determine ideomotion
Iliescu, A. F. (2019) · ORCA Online Research @Cardiff (Cardiff University)
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
