Cited by 58Cannabis and Cannabinoid ResearchNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study

THC reduces the anticipatory nucleus accumbens response to reward in subjects with a nicotine addiction

Open access
Jansma, J M, van Hell, H H, Vanderschuren, L J M J, Bossong, M G, Jager, G, Kahn, R S, Ramsey, N F·2013·Translational Psychiatry

Abstract

Recent evidence has implicated the endocannabinoid (eCB) system in nicotine addiction. The eCB system also has an important role in reward mechanisms, and nicotine addiction has been associated with aberrant reward processing. Motivated by this evidence, we tested the hypothesis that eCB modulation of reward processing is altered in subjects with a nicotine addiction (NAD). For this purpose, we compared reward-related activity in NAD with healthy controls (HC) in a pharmacological magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) study using Δ(9)-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) administration to challenge the eCB system. Eleven HC and 10 NAD participated in a 3-T functional MRI (fMRI) study with a double-blind, cross-over, placebo-controlled design, using a Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) paradigm with three reward levels. Reward activity in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) and caudate putamen during anticipation and feedback of reward was compared after THC and placebo. fMRI results indicated a significant reduction of reward anticipation activity in the NAcc in NAD after THC administration, which was not present in HC. This is indicated by a significant group by drug by reward interaction. Our data show that THC significantly reduces the NAcc response to monetary reward anticipation in NAD. These results suggest that nicotine addiction is associated with altered eCB modulation of reward processing in the NAcc. This study adds important human data to existing evidence implicating the eCB system in nicotine addiction.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1038/tp.2013.6

Cites

55 of 55 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Several fMRI studies using the monetary incentive delay task find ventral striatal activation changes without reaction-time changes, which suggests reaction time may be an insensitive reward-processing marker.

    “It should be noted that in various studies utilizing fMRI and the monetary incentive delay task, changes in ventral striatal activation are often found in the absence of changes in reaction time (Jansma et al., 2013; Saji et al., 2013; Smoski et al., 2011), suggesting that reaction time may lack sensitivity as a marker for reward processing.”

    From The effects of early life stress on reward processing (2018) · cites this paper as Jansma et al., 2013

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Martin-Soelch C Leenders KL Chevalley aF Missimer J Künig G Magyar S Reward mechanisms in the brain and their role in dependence: evidence from neurophysiological and neuroimaging studies Brain Res Rev 2001 36 139 149 11690610

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jansma, J. M., van Hell, H. H., Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J., Bossong, M. G., Jager, G., Kahn, R. S., & Ramsey, N. F.
Affiliations
  • University Medical Center Utrecht (NL)
  • Utrecht University (NL)
  • King's College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Ramsey, N F
Venue
Translational Psychiatry
Published
2013-02-26
Volume
3
Issue
2
Pages
e234-e234
ISSN
2158-3188 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2121876426
Cited by
58
References
55
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 8 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 2
FWCI
2.45
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Translational Psychiatry (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • Research Online (University of Wollongong) (submittedVersion)
  • Utrecht University Repository (Utrecht University) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Socio-Environmental Systems Modeling (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
  • Top Institute Pharma (T5-107)
  • National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences (L30 TR001787)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pharmacology › Cannabis and Cannabinoid Research
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology › Molecular Biology › Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptors Study
Keywords
nicotine dependence, endocannabinoid system, tetrahydrocannabinol, nucleus accumbens, reward anticipation, reward processing, caudate-putamen
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Double-Blind Method, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Motivation, Nucleus Accumbens, Reaction Time, Reward, Dronabinol, Tobacco Use Disorder, Cross-Over Studies, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review