The DOI matches its Crossref record; 143 of the 143 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 226 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view
Open accessAbstract
The question of addiction specifically concerns (1), the process by which drug‐taking behavior, in certain individuals, evolves into compulsive patterns of drug‐seeking and drug‐taking behavior that take place at the expense of most other activities and (2), the inability to cease drug‐taking; the problem of relapse. In this paper current biopsychological views of addiction are critically evaluated in light of the “incentivesensitization theory of addiction”, which we first proposed in 1993, and new developments in research are incorporated. We argue that traditional negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement, and hedonic accounts of addiction are neither necessary nor sufficient to account for compulsive patterns of drug‐seeking and drug‐taking behavior. Four major tenets of the incentive‐sensitization view are discussed. These are: (1) Potentially addictive drugs share the ability to produce long‐lasting adaptations in neural systems. (2) The brain systems that are changed include those normally involved in the process of incentive motivation and reward. (3) The critical neuroadaptations for addiction render these brain reward systems hypersensitive (“sensitized”) to drugs and drug‐associated stimuli. (4) The brain systems that are sensitized do not mediate the pleasurable or euphoric effects of drugs (drug “liking”), but instead they mediate a subcomponent of reward we have termed incentive salience (drug “wanting”). We also discuss the role that mesolimbic dopamine systems play in reward, evidence that neural sensitization happens in humans, and the implications of incentive‐sensitization for the development of therapies in the treatment of addiction.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
Robinson and Berridge argue that addiction is best explained not by negative reinforcement (withdrawal avoidance) or by drug pleasure ("liking"), but by drug-induced neural sensitization of the mesocorticolimbic dopamine system that amplifies incentive salience — drug "wanting" — for drugs and drug-associated stimuli. They review animal and human evidence for sensitization and draw implications for pharmacotherapy and psychotherapy.
Key findings
- Negative reinforcement, behaviorist positive reinforcement, and hedonic ("drug pleasure") accounts are argued to be "neither necessary nor sufficient" to explain compulsive drug-seeking and drug-taking; evidence cited includes poor correlation between subjective effects and drug-taking (e.g. pergolide decreased cocaine's subjective "high"/"stimulated" ratings and increased "I want cocaine" ratings while leaving self-administration unchanged; a 50% decrease in certain cocaine subjective effects by ABT-431 "did not shift cocaine self-administration"; people work for doses of morphine or cocaine producing no reported subjective effects).
- Four tenets of incentive-sensitization: addictive drugs produce long-lasting neural adaptations; these include incentive motivation/reward systems; the critical neuroadaptations render these systems hypersensitive ("sensitized"); and the sensitized systems mediate incentive salience ("wanting"), not pleasure ("liking").
- Sensitization is persistent and modulated by context: animals may remain hypersensitive for months or years; unsignaled i.v. amphetamine at 0.375–1.0 mg/kg fails to induce sensitization whereas the same doses do when signaled by a predictive environment, and higher doses induce sensitization regardless of environment.
- Human evidence: Strakowski et al. found that a second 0.25 mg/kg d-amphetamine treatment (48 h apart) produced greater increases in activity/energy, mood, speech rate/amount and eyeblink rate than the first; with three treatments, activity/energy and eyeblink rate increased progressively while subjective drug liking did not increase. Imaging studies (e.g. Breiter et al.) found craving-correlated signal changes in nucleus accumbens, parahippocampal cortex and lateral prefrontal cortex, with a craving-correlated decrease in amygdala.
Methods
- Theoretical/critical review, not an empirical study: the authors evaluate biopsychological models of addiction against the incentive-sensitization theory they first proposed in 1993 and incorporate subsequent research.
- Evidence reviewed is drawn from animal studies (psychomotor sensitization, self-administration, conditioned place preference, reinstatement, in vitro and in vivo neurochemistry, dendritic morphology) and human studies (amphetamine challenge studies, psychosis phenomenology, fMRI/PET imaging of cocaine and heroin addicts, cue-reactivity studies).
- No new data, sample, or statistical analysis are reported by the authors; findings are synthesized from cited primary studies.
Limitations
- Stated: there has been very little research on whether sensitization occurs in human addicts, and human work is "fraught with technical limitations"; imaging results are difficult to interpret given the small number of studies, limitations of imaging techniques, and apparent discrepancies (including opposite directions of accumbens/caudate signal change across studies).
- Stated: it is not yet known which neurobiological adaptations produced by repeated drug treatment are causally related to sensitization, and adequate tools to quantify the relevant neuroadaptations in the relevant human brain regions do not yet exist; the theory is presented as testable and falsifiable on these grounds.
- Stated: it is unclear whether a single pharmacological agent could reverse the multiple neuroadaptations involved, particularly given that most human addicts are polysubstance abusers, and whether such an agent could act without disrupting other experience-dependent plasticity.
- Evident from the text: the argument rests heavily on animal models, and the authors acknowledge that demonstrating incentive-sensitization in animals is "quite another" matter from demonstrating it in addicts; they also note it is not obvious which human behavioral measures best index neural sensitization.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
126 Not checked yet · 75 Own interpretation · 8 No basis given
In the paper
“Two measures increased progressively with repeated amphetamine treatment: activity/energy and eyeblink rate.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strakowski & Sax 140
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
“They found that the second treatment with amphetamine elicited a signi cantly greater increase than the rst in four behavioral measures: activity/energy, mood, rate and amount of speech and eyeblink rate.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strakowski et al. 139
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
“The two brain regions that in addicts that showed the greatest change in cerebral blood-ow in response to viewing drug-related stimuli were the amygdala and the caudate.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Childress et al. 147
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Cravingcorrelated signal increases were found in the nucleus accumbens region, parahippocampal cortex and parts of the lateral prefrontal cortex.146”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [146]
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.
In the paper
“Signal decreases were seen in the amygdala, temporal pole and the medial frontal cortex.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Breiter et al. 146
plain- 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.
In the paper
“More recently, Strakowski et al. 141 reported evidence for signi cant psychomotor sensitization in humans using a between-subjects design.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strakowski et al. 141
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.
In the paper
“There has also been one report which failed to nd evidence for cocaine sensitization in humans, 142”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [142]
plain- 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.
In the paper
“A craving-correlated decrease in signal was reported in the amygdala.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [146]
plaincorrelational- 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.
In the paper
“Interestingly, subjective ratings of drug liking did not increase with three drug treatments”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strakowski & Sax 140
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.
In the paper
“they found that cocaine produced a rapid signal increase in many structures, including the nucleus accumbens, the neostriatum (caudate/putamen), many neocortical regions, ventral tegmentum and a variety of other brain areas.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Breiter et al. 146
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. 44
- Probably not a substantial claim. 30
In the paper
“Blood ow increased signi cantly in the amygdala and decreased signi cantly in the caudate and lenticular nucleus.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Childress et al. 147
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.
In the paper
“Indeed, for eyeblink rate there was no effect of the rst treatment with amphetamine, relative to placebo, but an increase in eyeblink rate emerged with subsequent drug treatments, even though the dose was the same.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strakowski & Sax 140
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“there are now a reasonable number of imaging studies showing that the mesocorticolimbic projection systems are engaged when addicts are given drugs or when they are exposed to drugassociated stimuli, and that in some cases this is associated with reports of craving.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
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
“Wang et al. 150 reported changes in metabolism only in the orbitofrontal cortex, left insular cortex and cerebellum.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wang et al. 150
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Sensitization is indicated by a signi cantly greater behavioral response in amphetamine than in saline pretreated animals.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychotherapies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73]
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“We have hypothesized that when sensitized, this incentive salience process produces compulsive patterns of drug-seeking behavior.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Incentive -sensitization
hedgeddirect- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“These kinds of data are very important because they establish that the motivation to take drugs (drug wanting) is not always directly attributable to the subjective pleasurable effects of drugs (drug liking), and it is possible this is especially true in addicts.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Limitations of drug pleasure (hedonic reinforcement) models
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.
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
“Furthermore, the persistence of neural sensitization is hypothesized to leave addicts susceptible to relapse even long after the discontinuation of drug use.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Incentive -sensitization
hedgedconditional- Asserted: fails — The authors may not put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The authors may not put it forward as true. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“That is, one must consider the possibility that in addicts the subjective pleasurable effects and the motivational effects of drugs are merely correlated effects.They occur together most of the time, but they can be dissociated and there is no necessary causal relationship between them.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Limitations of drug pleasure (hedonic reinforcement) models
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.
In the paper
“In thinking about the problem of addiction, and the development of animal models of addiction, it is important to remember that at some time many people experiment with a variety of potentially addictive drugs, but most do not become addicted.1”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1]
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Indeed, the factors responsible for experimental or casual drug use may or may not be directly relevant to the problem of addiction.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Introduction
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
In the paper
“First, drug-taking may increase dramatically over time as an addiction develops, but the pleasure induced by a given dose of a drug is not reported to increase (see note 5 in Robinson & Berridge 3 for a discussion of this point).”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Limitations of drug pleasure (hedonic reinforcement) models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
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.
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
“It is probably true that often people are initially motivated to take drugs because of the ability of drugs to produce positive affective states (and because their peers are doing it, and for many other complicated psychosocial reasons), but in the addict the association between the hedonic consequences of drug consumption and the ability of drugs and drug-related stimuli to motivate behavior oft”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Limitations of drug pleasure (hedonic reinforcement) models
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
“It is important to remem-ber that positive reinforcement, taken as a behaviorist concept, is only a description of a behavioral effect, not an explanation of the effect (Berridge & Robinson,19 see footnote 3 for detailed discussion).”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Limitations of behaviorist positive reinforcement models
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Drug-seeking and drug-taking in the addict may involve factors that are qualitatively different from those that motivate drug-taking in the nonaddict.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Introduction
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Especially relevant to the present discussion is evidence that repeated treatment with amphetamine increases ethanol intake when rats are tested 3 months after the cessation of amphetamine treatment, 47 suggesting there may be long-lasting sensitization to ethanol's rewarding effects.48,49”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychomotor sensitization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [47]
- Not checked yetcites [48]
- Not checked yetcites [49]
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
“Sensitization is dose-dependent; the most robust sensitization occurs after treatment with relatively high doses.51,52”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychomotor sensitization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [51]
- Not checked yetcites [52]
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.
In the paper
“Cross-sensitization between stress and ethanol has also been reported.44”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychomotor sensitization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44]
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“For example, for many drugs sensitization is typically seen only when drugs are administered intermittently, and the most robust sensitization occurs when injections are widely spaced in time. 34”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychomotor sensitization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34]
plaincorrelational- 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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Gonadal hormones have been implicated in studies reporting sex differences in susceptibility to sensitization, [64][65][66] and these sex differences are attenuated by castration of male rats.66,67”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Individual differences in susceptibility to sensitization
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [64]
- Not checked yetcites [65]
- Not checked yetcites [66]
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Only the animals treated with drug in the test environment usually express sensitization.The animals treated with drug in a different environment often fail to express sensitization in the test environment, where drug has never before been experienced.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Modulation of sensitization by the circumstances surrounding drug administration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73]
- Not checked yetcites [74]
- Not checked yetcites [75]
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 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
“Nevertheless, the incentive - sensitization theory posits that factors which render people susceptible to sensitization will also contribute to individual variation in susceptibility to addiction.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Individual differences in susceptibility to sensitization
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: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“It appears, therefore, that repeated exposure to amphetamine may induce neural sensitization non-associatively, but whether the consequences of neural sensitization are expressed at a particular place or time is determined to a large extent by conditional stimuli (especially contextual stimuli) that have been associatively paired with drug administration.73”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Modulation of sensitization by the circumstances surrounding drug administration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [73]
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.
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, sensitization is not an inevitable consequence of exposure to potentially addictive drugs.That is, it is not a simple pharmacological phenomenon, but both the expression and the induction of sensitization can be powerfully modulated by non-pharmacological factors, including environmental (and presumably psychological) factors associated with drug administration.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Modulation of sensitization by the circumstances surrounding drug administration
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
“When given at home amphetamine induced c-fos only in striatal neurons also positive for dopamine D1 receptor mRNA (not in cells positive for D2 receptor mRNA); but when given in association with environmental novelty amphetamine induced c-fos in both D1 and D2 mRNA-positive neurons.88”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Modulation of sensitization by the circumstances surrounding drug administration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [88]
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
“The ability of context to act as an occasion-setter and to modulate sensitization would interact with the ability of speci c drug-associated conditioned stimuli to trigger craving as a classically conditioned response, combining to provide very strong contextual control over both craving and relapse.3”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Modulation of sensitization by the circumstances surrounding drug administration
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
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
“Examples of postsynaptic adaptations include an increase in the sensitivity of dopamine D1 receptors 78,123 and a decrease in the sensitivity of glutamate receptors 127 in the nucleus accumbens of sensitized animals”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization and drug reward
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [78]
- Not checked yetcites [123]
- Not checked yetcites [127]
plaincorrelational- 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
“Rothman et al. concentrated on physiologic responses … [which] from animal studies … would not be expected to exhibit sensitization … and indeed, we also did not observe sensitization in vital signs measurements”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Sensitization in humans
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Strakowski et al. 144
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the incentive - sensitization theory holds that drugs can activate positive core processes of motivation in the absence of conscious awareness, so that positive effects may not be indicated on any scale of subjective affective intensity.3,19,30,155”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [3]
- Not checked yetcites [19]
- Not checked yetcites [30]
- Not checked yetcites [155]
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 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
“indices of behavioral sensitization are important only as secondary measures because they provide indicators of underlying neuroadaptive processes (neural sensitization), and it is neural sensitization that is critical or primary for incentive -sensitization predictions regarding addiction.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
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 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
“individuals will differ in their susceptibility for sensitization of that neural substrate, and those who sensitize most readily will be most at risk for addiction.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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 incentive - sensitization hypothesis makes strong predictions regarding neural sensitization in human addicts, but not necessarily about what which speci c behaviors might best re ect neural sensitization”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the dopamine hedonia hypothesis is not only found in popular media accounts of dopamine's function in reward, but it still lives in the scienti c literature.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“in rats, some behaviors show robust sensitization, such as rotational behavior, repetitive snif ng and repetitive head movements, whereas other seemingly related stereotyped behaviors do not, such as oral movements.34,85”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [34]
- Not checked yetcites [85]
plain- 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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The PAG has projections to the VTA, and of course, the VTA is the origin of ascending dopamine projections to the nucleus accumbens and neocortex.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the doses used in studies with humans are lower than those typically used in animal studies, and drugs are often given orally.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Human imaging studies
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 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
“points 4 and 5 together suggest that in humans increased dopamine neurotransmission is neither necessary nor suf cient for psychostimulants to produce subjective pleasurable effects.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
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.
In the paper
“It is incentive salience that determines the value of incentives, and that controls seeking and instrumental behavior regarding them.19”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19]
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
“Activation of this system may con-stitute an implicit rather than explicit psychological process, similar to implicit memory or to implicit perceptual processes, 182,183 and can act sometimes as an unconscious motivational process.3,30,155”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [182]
- Not checked yetcites [183]
- Not checked yetcites [3]
- Not checked yetcites [30]
- Not checked yetcites [155]
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a more thorough examination of the evidence does not support the hypothesis that this represents a necessary causal relationship, or that dopamine mediates pleasure.19,173”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19]
- Not checked yetcites [173]
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 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
“Some of these may contribute directly to the development and/or manifestation of sensitized incentive salience, and others may contribute to addiction via alternate mechanisms.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
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.
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
“Addicts may report they are miserable, their life is in ruins, and that even the drug is not that great anymore.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > "Wanting" versus "liking"
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“More recently, a different antidepressant, bupropion (Wellbutrin), has been reported to increase abstinence from cigarettes for smokers.202,203”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Antidepressants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [202]
- Not checked yetcites [203]
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“For example, a medication that reversed sensitization-related neuroadaptations would not be effective if after treatment a person resumed drug-taking, and reinitiated the sensitization process.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Implications for therapy
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“First, it suggests that pharmacotherapeutic approaches which fail to address the neuroadaptive processes that lead to addiction in the rst place will probably provide only symptomatic relief, and in the long term will probably be of limited ef cacy.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Implications for therapy
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.
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 substitution therapies might be effective in managing addictive disorders, it must be acknowledged that they do not eliminate the addiction.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Substitution approaches
hedged- 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.
- Rests on an assumption: Opiate addicts can be maintained for long periods of time by substitution of heroin or morphine with long-acting mu opiate receptor agonists, such as methadone or LAAM, and more recently by partial agonists such as buprenorphine.
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
“However, there is no reason to believe that opioid antagonists are capable of permanently reversing any of the neuroadaptations in an addict that lead to incentive sensitization, and so an individual may still remain at risk to relapse.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Antagonists
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says 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
“These substitutes are themselves chronically self-administered and may promote the same neuroadaptive processes as the originally abused agent, thus maintaining the strength of an addiction.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Substitution approaches
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Presumably, they might be effective in preventing the development of an addiction, and may possibly also prevent the re-boosting of incentive salience attributions that would otherwise strengthen the addiction further (for discussion of re-boosting and incentive salience, see Berridge & Robinson 19 ).”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Antagonists
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [19]
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.
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
“Success for anti-craving drugs is typically measured as a modest increase in the percentage of addicts who give up their drugs for a few months, or even just a few weeks.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“They might satisfy their desire by either taking enough cocaine to overcome the antibody, or by taking a different psychostimulant, such as amphetamine, which is not targeted by the vaccine.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Immunotherapies
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
“If acamprosate acts primarily on NMDA receptors, if the location of those NMDA receptors were in the mesoaccumbens system or its major connections, and if NMDA receptors are important mediators of the expression of neural sensitization, 124 (124) then it might conceivably interfere with an NMDA mechanism involved in the expression of sensitization.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Acamprosate
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. 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
“However, it is unlikely that people would be willing to take such agents before they become addicts, and so these are not likely to be useful therapeutic tools.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
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: unclear — It is unclear why the paper says it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: People would be unwilling to take agents that block the development of sensitization before they become addicts.
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 optimal approach presumably would be to reverse the neural changes underlying sensitization in addicts.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“Clearly, however, this hinges on a number of assumptions, and so the relation between acamprosate and the incentive -salience hypothesis must remain unclear for the time being.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Acamprosate
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“Of course, this approach also fails to reverse the neuroadaptive processes responsible for addiction, even though it may impede their further growth.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Immunotherapies
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 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
“For several therapeutic drugs, such as some antidepressants, even this goal is often not reached.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
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
“It is possible that acamprosate might act in part by modulating the sensitized incentive salience of drugrelated stimuli.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Acamprosate
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Bupropion is a monoamine uptake blocker, and modulates both norepinephrine and dopamine activity.[204][205][206]”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Antidepressants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [204]
- Not checked yetcites [205]
- Not checked yetcites [206]
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
“Increased numbers of the transporter molecules after this drug could facilitate re-uptake, and so exert a suppressive effect on dopamine neurotransmission that would oppose the original re-uptake blocking action 207,208 (Dr K.Y. Little,personal communication).”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Antidepressants
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [207]
- Not checked yetcites [208]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Finally, there recently has been interest in developing immunotherapies for cocaine abuse, 18 which involve treatment with primary antibodies or catalytic antibodies to cocaine.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Immunotherapies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18]
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Using drugs to block the development of sensitization should be effective, and in animals studies many such dopaminergic and glutaminergic agents have been identi ed.124”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124]
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Therapeutic drugs that target the neural mechanisms involved in the expression of sensitized incentive salience may offer the best hope of pharmacotherapies for addiction from the point of view of the incentive -sensitization theory.124,125”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [124]
- Not checked yetcites [125]
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“Sadly, the persistence of neural sensitization may mean, to paraphrase Alcoholics Anonymous, that in a neurobiological sense once an addict always an addict.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychotherapies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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
“A drug therapy that acted to block the attribution of sensitized incentive salience to drug-related stimuli and associated representations might well reduce addictive craving and compulsive drug taking.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
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.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“However, in developing such compounds the incentive -sensitization theory posits that their neural target must be the neural substrate responsible speci cally for sensitized incentive salience, and it is not well established that this substrate is the same as that responsible for psychomotor sensitization.216,217”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [216]
- Not checked yetcites [217]
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. 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
“It might be more reasonable to hope to modulate the expression of neural sensitization, even if one could not reverse it.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“They may offer the best hope for addicts today.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychotherapies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“But by developing effective long-term behavioral, cognitive and psychosocial support structures one should be able to manage more effectively the urges arising from drug sensitized neural systems that mediate the basic motivational processes discussed here.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Psychotherapies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check 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 be too vague to check against evidence.
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
“It is even possible that some current drugs, to the degree that they target craving at all, might interact with neural mechanisms that express sensitization.”
§ ANIMAL MODELS IN CRAVING > Future pharmacotherapies
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The authors state this as an assumption.
The neural substrate that mediates the psychomotor activating effects of drugs is either the same as, or at least overlaps with, the neural substrate responsible for the rewarding effects of drugs.
“Studies on the psychomotor activating effects of drugs are thought to be relevant to addiction because of the assumption that the neural substrate that mediates these effects is either the same as, or at least overlaps with, the neural substrate responsible for the rewarding effects of drugs.15”
The paper relies on this without support.
Some drugs that do not produce strong withdrawal syndromes, such as psychostimulants, can be highly addictive.
“For example, drugs that do not produce strong withdrawal syndromes, such as psychostimulants, can be highly addictive.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Repeated exposure to drugs of abuse can induce neural sensitization in humans.
“these latter hypotheses are more speculative, and are predicated on the assumption that repeated exposure to drugs of abuse can induce neural sensitization in humans.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Most human addicts are polysubstance abusers.
“Also, most human addicts are polysubstance abusers, and it is not obvious whether any single agent would be effective if different drugs of abuse induce different sensitization-related neuroadaptations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
People would be unwilling to take agents that block the development of sensitization before they become addicts.
“However, it is unlikely that people would be willing to take such agents before they become addicts, and so these are not likely to be useful therapeutic tools.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Opiate addicts can be maintained for long periods of time by substitution of heroin or morphine with long-acting mu opiate receptor agonists, such as methadone or LAAM, and more recently by partial agonists such as buprenorphine.
“Opiate addicts can be maintained for long periods of time by substitution of heroin or morphine with long-acting mu opiate receptor agonists, such as methadone or levo-alpha acetyl methadyl (LAAM), and more recently by partial agonists such as buprenorphine.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Drugs of abuse produce persistent alterations in many neural systems, altering many other psychological processes.
“We must emphasize, however, that incentive -sensitization is just one contributor to addiction, and that drugs of abuse produce persistent alterations in many neural systems, altering many other psychological processes.”
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
“Such a possibility would be akin to the cycles of demyelination and remyelination often experienced by patients with multiple sclerosis 72 : cycles that have been shown to be associated with fluctuations in conduction velocity 46 and symptomatology, including psychotic symptomatology.[73][74][75]”
From Schizophrenia, myelination, and delayed corollary discharges: a hypothesis (2012) · cites this paper as [74]
Citations
Cites
Telling more than we can know: Verbal reports on mental processes.
Nisbett, R. E., & Wilson, T. D. (1977) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.84.3.231 · Cited by 11,317
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-citationSymonds, P. M. (1954) · Journal of Educational Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0051901 · Cited by 4,902
Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons
Schultz, W. (1998) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1998.80.1.1 · Cited by 4,564
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-citationA psychomotor stimulant theory of addiction.
Wise, R. A., & Bozarth, M. A. (1987) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.94.4.469 · Cited by 2,747
Drug abuse: hedonic homeostatic dysregulation
Koob, G. F., & Moal, M. L. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.278.5335.52 · Cited by 2,535
Kalivas, P., & Stewart, J. (1991) · Brain research. Brain research reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(91)90007-u · Cited by 2,087
Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking
Berridge, K. C. (1996) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(95)00033-b · Cited by 1,901
Self-citationRobinson, T. E., & Becker, J. B. (1986) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(86)90002-0 · Cited by 1,796
Self-citation
Research works printed but not linked: 21
- INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON OPPORTUNITIES IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH (1996) Pathways of Addiction (Washington, DC, National Academy Press).
- EDWARDS, G. (1981) Nomenclature and classi cation of drug-and alcohol-related prob- lems: a WHO memorandum, Bulletin of the World Health Organization, 59, 225-242.
- WIKLER, A. (1948) Recent progress in research on the neurophysiological basis of morphine ad- diction, American Journal of Psychiatry, 105, 329- 338.
- GOUDIE, A. J. & DEMELLWEEK, C. (1986) Conditioning factors in drug tolerance, in: GOLDBERG, S. R. & STOLERMAN, I. P. (Eds) Behavioral Analysis of Drug Dependence, pp. 225- 285 (New York, Academic Press).
- JAFFE, J. H. (1992) Current concepts of addic- tion, in: O'BRIEN, C. P. & JAFFE, J. H. (Eds) Addictive States, pp. 1-21 (New York, Raven Press).
- DEWS, P. (1977) Remarks, in: THOMPSON, T. & UNNA, K. R. (Eds) Predicting Dependence Liability of Stimulant and Depressant Drugs, pp. 75-79 (Baltimore, University Park Press).
- CRABBE, J. C., JOHNSON, N. A., GRAY, D. K., KOSOBUD, A. & YOUNG, E. R. (1982) Biphasic effects of ethanol on open-eld activity: sensi- tivity and tolerance in C57BL/6N and DBA/2N mice, Journal of Comparative and Physiological Psychology, 96, 440-451.
- KANTOR, L., HEWLETT, G. H. & GNEGY, M. E. (1999) Enhanced amphetamine-and K 1 -medi- ated dopamine release in rat striatum after re- peated amphetamine: differential requirements for Ca2 1 -and calmodulin-dependent phos- phorylation and synaptic vesicles, Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 3801-3808.
- BADIANI, A., OATES, M. M., DAY, H. E. W., WATSON, S. J., AKIL, H. & ROBINSON, T. E. (1998) Amphetamine-induced behavior, do- pamine release, and c-fos mRNA expression: modulation by environmental novelty, Journal of Neuroscience, 18, 10579-10593.
- SHIPPENBERG, T. S., LEFEVOUR, A. & HEIDBREDER, C. (1996) k-opioid receptor ago- nists prevent sensitization to the conditioned rewarding effects of cocaine, Journal of Pharma- cology and Experimental Therapeutics, 276, 545- 554. 103.
- FIORINO, D. F. & PHILLIPS, A. G. (1999) Facilita- tion of sexual behavior and enhanced dopamine ef ux in the nucleus accumbens of male rats after D-amphetamine-induced behavioral sensitiza- tion, Journal of Neuroscience, 19, 456-463. 114.
- ROBINSON, T. E. & KOLB, B. (1997) Persistent structural modi cations in nucleus accumbens and prefrontal cortex neurons produced by pre- vious experience with amphetamine, Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 8491-8497. 129.
- ANGRIST, B. (1994) Amphetamine psychosis: clinical variations of the syndrome, in: CHO, A. K. & SEGAL, D. S. (Eds) Amphetamine and its Analogs: psychopharmacology, toxicology and abuse, pp. 387- 414 (New York, Academic Press). 134.
- SATO, M. (1986) Acute exacerbation of metham- phetamine psychosis and lasting dopaminergic upersensitivity-a clinical survey, Psychopharma- cology Bulletin, 22, 751-756. 136.
- SEGAL, D. S. & SCHUCKIT, M. A. (1983) Animal models of stimulant-induced psychosis, in: CREESE, I. (Ed.) Stimulants: Neurochemical, Be- havioral and Clinical Perspectives, pp. 131-167 (New York, Raven Press). 137.
- UTENA, H. (1966) Behavioral aberrations in methamphetamine-intoxicated animals and chemical correlates in the brain, in: TOKIZANE, T. & SCHADE, J. P. (Eds) Progress in Brain Research, Vol. 21B, Coerrelative neurosciences: clinical studies, pp. 192-207 (Amsterdam, Elsevier). 138.
- GONON, F. (1997) Prolonged and extrasynaptic excitatory action of dopamine mediated by D1 receptors in the rat striatum in vivo, Journal of Neuroscience, 17, 5972-5978. 155.
- ROTHMAN, R. B. & GLOWA, J. R. (1995) A review of the effects of dopaminergic agents on humans, animals, and drug-seeking behavior, and its implications for medication development. Focus on GBR 12909, Molecular Neurobiology, 11, 1- 19. 179.
- TOATES, F. (1986) Motivational Systems (Cam- bridge, Cambridge University Press). 182.
- MEYER, R. E. (1992) New pharmacotherapies for cocaine dependence … revisited [published erra- tum appears in Archives of General Psychiatry 1993, 50(1),16], Archives of General Psychiatry, 49, 900-904. 198.
- ZHANG, L., ELMER, L. W. & LITTLE, K. Y. (1998) Expression and regulation of the human do- pamine transporter in a neuronal cell line [pub- lished erratum appears in 1998 Dec 10, 63(1), 205], Molecular Brain Research, 59, 66-73. 209.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Brand, M., Young, K. S., Laier, C., Wölfling, K., & Potenza, M. N. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.08.033 · Cited by 2,416
Chronic stress, drug use, and vulnerability to addiction
Sinha, R. (2008) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1441.030 · Cited by 1,904
The incentive sensitization theory of addiction: some current issues
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0093 · Cited by 1,717
Self-citationElhai, J. D., Dvorak, R. D., Levine, J. C., & Hall, B. J. (2017) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2016.08.030 · Cited by 1,689
How does stress increase risk of drug abuse and relapse?
Sinha, R. (2001) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130100917 · Cited by 1,505
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2003) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145237 · Cited by 1,509
Self-citationIncentive-sensitization and addiction
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2001) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.2001.9611038.x · Cited by 1,435
Self-citationKelley, A. E. (2004) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2003.11.015 · Cited by 942
Long-term depression in the CNS
Collingridge, G. L., Peineau, S., Howland, J. G., & Wang, Y. T. (2010) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn2867 · Cited by 926
Wise, R. A. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00965-0 · Cited by 881
Montague, P. R., Dolan, R. J., Friston, K. J., & Dayan, P. (2012) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tics.2011.11.018 · Cited by 809
The neuropsychological basis of addictive behaviour
Everitt, B. J., Dickinson, A., & Robbins, T. W. (2001) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00088-1 · Cited by 808
Wyvell, C. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2000) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.20-21-08122.2000 · Cited by 764
Self-citationChildhood predictors of adolescent substance use in a longitudinal study of children with ADHD
Molina, B. S. G., & Pelham, W. E. (2003) · Journal of Abnormal Psychology · doi:10.1037/0021-843x.112.3.497 · Cited by 706
Neural correlates of food addiction
Gearhardt, A. N. (2011) · Archives of General Psychiatry · doi:10.1001/archgenpsychiatry.2011.32 · Cited by 707
Brand, M., Young, K. S., & Laier, C. (2014) · Frontiers in Human Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnhum.2014.00375 · Cited by 565
“…satisfy certain desires increases the likelihood that these Internet applications are used frequently, as assumed in addictive behavior in general (Robinson and Berridge, 2000, 2003; Everitt and Robbins, 2006) and that the individual can develop a loss of control over his/her use of such…”
BackgroundHyperdopaminergic mutant mice have higher "wanting" but not "liking" for sweet rewards
Peciña, S., Cagniard, B., Berridge, K. C., Aldridge, J. W., & Zhuang, X. (2003) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-28-09395.2003 · Cited by 551
Self-citationBelin, D., Jonkman, S., Dickinson, A., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.09.027 · Cited by 520
Mindfulness-based relapse prevention for alcohol and substance use disorders
Witkiewitz, K., Marlatt, G. A., & Walker, D. (2005) · Journal of Cognitive Psychotherapy · doi:10.1891/jcop.2005.19.3.211 · Cited by 514
The neurobiology of opioid dependence: implications for treatment
Kosten, T., & George, T. (2002) · Science & Practice Perspectives · doi:10.1151/spp021113 · Cited by 505
Steeves, T. D. L., Miyasaki, J., Zurowski, M., Lang, A. E., Pellecchia, G., Van Eimeren, T., Rusjan, P., Houle, S., & Strafella, A. P. (2009) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/awp054 · Cited by 502
A unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process
Redish, A. D., Jensen, S., & Johnson, A. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0800472x · Cited by 501
Compulsive drug use linked to sensitized ventral striatal dopamine transmission.
Evans, A. H., Pavese, N., Lawrence, A. D., Tai, Y. F., Appel, S., Doder, M., Brooks, D. J., Lees, A. J., & Piccini, P. (2006) · Annals of Neurology · doi:10.1002/ana.20822 · Cited by 473
Individual differences in reward responding explain placebo-induced expectations and effects
Scott, D. J., Stohler, C. S., Egnatuk, C. M., Wang, H., Koeppe, R. A., & Zubieta, J.-K. (2007) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2007.06.028 · Cited by 466
Wyvell, C. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-19-07831.2001 · Cited by 436
Self-citationThe role of stress in addiction relapse
Sinha, R. (2007) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-007-0050-6 · Cited by 423
New findings on biological factors predicting addiction relapse vulnerability
Sinha, R. (2011) · Current Psychiatry Reports · doi:10.1007/s11920-011-0224-0 · Cited by 401
The endocrinology of sexual arousal
Bancroft, J. (2005) · Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1677/joe.1.06233 · Cited by 398
Siep, N., Roefs, A., Roebroeck, A., Havermans, R., Bonte, M. L., & Jansen, A. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.10.035 · Cited by 375
Relapse and Relapse Prevention
Brandon, T. H., Vidrine, J. I., & Litvin, E. B. (2007) · Annual Review of Clinical Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.clinpsy.3.022806.091455 · Cited by 385
Rewards teach visual selective attention
Chelazzi, L., Perlato, A., Santandrea, E., & Della Libera, C. (2013) · Vision Research · doi:10.1016/j.visres.2012.12.005 · Cited by 354
Célèrier, E., Laulin, J.-P., Corcuff, J.-B., Le Moal, M., & Simonnet, G. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-11-04074.2001 · Cited by 315
The role of affective dysregulation in drug addiction
Cheetham, A., Allen, N. B., Yücel, M., & Lubman, D. I. (2010) · Clinical Psychology Review · doi:10.1016/j.cpr.2010.04.005 · Cited by 308
Cannon, C. M., & Palmiter, R. D. (2003) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-34-10827.2003 · Cited by 280
The persistence of maladaptive memory: Addiction, drug memories and anti-relapse treatments
Milton, A. L., & Everitt, B. J. (2012) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2012.01.002 · Cited by 279
Food reward, hyperphagia, and obesity
Berthoud, H.-R., Lenard, N. R., & Shin, A. C. (2011) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00028.2011 · Cited by 275
The Emperor Has No Clothes: A Review of the ‘Pornography Addiction’ Model
Ley, D., Prause, N., & Finn, P. (2014) · Current Sexual Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s11930-014-0016-8 · Cited by 272
Prior Stressor Exposure Sensitizes LPS-Induced Cytokine Production
Johnson, J. D., O'Connor, K. A., Deak, T., Stark, M., Watkins, L. R., & Maier, S. F. (2002) · Brain, Behavior, and Immunity · doi:10.1006/brbi.2001.0638 · Cited by 270
Effects of deprivation on hedonics and reinforcing value of food
Epstein, L. H., Truesdale, R., Wojcik, A., Paluch, R. A., & Raynor, H. A. (2003) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(02)00978-2 · Cited by 267
Anticipatory reward processing in addicted populations: a focus on the monetary incentive delay task
Balodis, I. M., & Potenza, M. N. (2015) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2014.08.020 · Cited by 267
Dopamine Dysregulation Syndrome: An Overview of its Epidemiology, Mechanisms and Management
OʼSullivan, S. S., Evans, A. H., & Lees, A. J. (2009) · CNS Drugs · doi:10.2165/00023210-200923020-00005 · Cited by 265
Smartphone addiction and associated consequences: Role of loneliness and self-regulation
Mahapatra, S. (2019) · Behaviour & Information Technology · doi:10.1080/0144929x.2018.1560499 · Cited by 261
Nicotine: from molecular mechanisms to behaviour
Wonnacott, S., Sidhpura, N., & Balfour, D. J. (2005) · Current Opinion in Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2004.12.002 · Cited by 263
Neuroplasticity of Dopamine Circuits After Exercise: Implications for Central Fatigue
Foley, T. E., & Fleshner, M. (2008) · NeuroMolecular Medicine · doi:10.1007/s12017-008-8032-3 · Cited by 261
Altered responsiveness to cocaine in rats exposed to methylphenidate during development
Andersen, S. L., Arvanitogiannis, A., Pliakas, A. M., LeBlanc, C., & Carlezon, W. A. (2002) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn777 · Cited by 259
Burgdorf, J., Panksepp, J., & Moskal, J. R. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.11.011 · Cited by 258
Ahmed, S. H., & Koob, G. F. (2005) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-005-2180-z · Cited by 254
Enduring behavioral effects of early exposure to methylphenidate in rats
Carlezon, W. A., Mague, S. D., & Andersen, S. L. (2003) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2003.08.020 · Cited by 248
A multistep general theory of transition to addiction
Piazza, P. V., & Deroche-Gamonet, V. (2013) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-013-3224-4 · Cited by 227
Wegmann, E., Stodt, B., & Brand, M. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.021 · Cited by 223
Cousijn, J., Goudriaan, A. E., & Wiers, R. W. (2011) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2011.03475.x · Cited by 216
Are adolescents more vulnerable to drug addiction than adults? Evidence from animal models
Schramm-Sapyta, N. L., Walker, Q. D., Caster, J. M., Levin, E. D., & Kuhn, C. M. (2009) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-009-1585-5 · Cited by 215
Linnet, J., Møller, A., Peterson, E., Gjedde, A., & Doudet, D. (2011) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/j.1360-0443.2010.03126.x · Cited by 214
The role of ventral frontostriatal circuitry in reward-based learning in humans.
Galvan, A., Hare, T. A., Davidson, M., Spicer, J., Glover, G., & Casey, B. J. (2005) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2431-05.2005 · Cited by 207
Brand, M., Snagowski, J., Laier, C., & Maderwald, S. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.01.033 · Cited by 198
How fast and how often: The pharmacokinetics of drug use are decisive in addiction
Allain, F., Minogianis, E.-A., Roberts, D. C. S., & Samaha, A.-N. (2015) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.06.012 · Cited by 192
Hypersexuality: A Critical Review and Introduction to the “Sexhavior Cycle”
Walton, M. T., Cantor, J. M., Bhullar, N., & Lykins, A. D. (2017) · Archives of Sexual Behavior · doi:10.1007/s10508-017-0991-8 · Cited by 192
Conceptual framework for the etiology of alcoholism: a “kindling”/stress hypothesis
Breese, G. R., Overstreet, D. H., & Knapp, D. J. (2005) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-004-2016-2 · Cited by 167
Reward 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
Self-citationSelective processing of cannabis cues in regular cannabis users
Field, M., Eastwood, B., Bradley, B. P., & Mogg, K. (2006) · Drug and Alcohol Dependence · doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2006.03.018 · Cited by 170
Chocolate eating in healthy men during experimentally induced sadness and joy
Macht, M., Roth, S., & Ellgring, H. (2002) · Appetite · doi:10.1006/appe.2002.0499 · Cited by 160
Mechanisms of Action and Persistent Neuroplasticity by Drugs of Abuse
Korpi, E. R., den Hollander, B., Farooq, U., Vashchinkina, E., Rajkumar, R., Nutt, D. J., Hyytiä, P., & Dawe, G. S. (2015) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1124/pr.115.010967 · Cited by 148
Memory processes governing amphetamine-induced psychomotor sensitization
Anagnostaras, S. (2002) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(01)00402-x · Cited by 143
K. Garber, A., & H. Lustig, R. (2011) · Current Drug Abuse Reviewse · doi:10.2174/1874473711104030146 · Cited by 143
Kim, H. S., & Hodgins, D. C. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2018.00406 · Cited by 143
Schizophrenia, myelination, and delayed corollary discharges: a hypothesis
Whitford, T. J., Ford, J. M., Mathalon, D. H., Kubicki, M., & Shenton, M. E. (2012) · Schizophrenia Bulletin · doi:10.1093/schbul/sbq105 · Cited by 140
Goldman, M. S. (2002) · Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/j.1530-0277.2002.tb02599.x · Cited by 135
21st century neurobehavioral theories of decision making in addiction: Review and evaluation
Bickel, W. K., Mellis, A. M., Snider, S. E., Athamneh, L. N., Stein, J. S., & Pope, D. A. (2018) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2017.09.009 · Cited by 134
Ferrari, R., Le Novère, N., Picciotto, M. R., Changeux, J. P., & Zoli, M. (2002) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2001.02009.x · Cited by 132
Agogo, D., & Hess, T. J. (2018) · European Journal of Information Systems · doi:10.1080/0960085x.2018.1435230 · Cited by 121
Fatseas, M., Serre, F., Alexandre, J., Debrabant, R., Auriacombe, M., & Swendsen, J. (2015) · Addiction · doi:10.1111/add.12882 · Cited by 117
Food hedonics and reinforcement as determinants of laboratory food intake in smokers
EPSTEIN, L., WRIGHT, S., PALUCH, R., LEDDY, J., HAWK, L., JARONI, J., SAAD, F., CRYSTALMANSOUR, S., & LERMAN, C. (2004) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.02.015 · Cited by 116
Zellner, M. R., Watt, D. F., Solms, M., & Panksepp, J. (2011) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2011.01.003 · Cited by 112
Attenuated salivary cortisol secretion under cue exposure is associated with early relapse
JUNGHANNS, K., TIETZ, U., DIBBELT, L., KUETHER, M., JURTH, R., EHRENTHAL, D., BLANK, S., & BACKHAUS, J. (2005) · Alcohol and Alcoholism · doi:10.1093/alcalc/agh107 · Cited by 100
Smartphones are more reinforcing than food for students
O'Donnell, S., & Epstein, L. H. (2019) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.018 · Cited by 101
Zhang, T. A., Placzek, A. N., & Dani, J. A. (2010) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2010.06.004 · Cited by 100
Do high rates of cigarette consumption increase delay discounting?
Reynolds, B. (2004) · Behavioural Processes · doi:10.1016/j.beproc.2004.08.006 · Cited by 98
Cisler, J. M., Elton, A., Kennedy, A. P., Young, J., Smitherman, S., Andrew James, G., & Kilts, C. D. (2013) · Psychiatry Research: Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2013.02.007 · Cited by 99
“Drug dependence is associated with conditioned incentive salience of drug-related cues, a process believed to be mediated by druginduced sensitization of mesocorticolimbic systems (Robinson and Berridge, 2000, 2003, 2008).”
BackgroundA double-blind placebo controlled experimental study of nicotine: I—effects on incentive motivation
Dawkins, L., Powell, J. H., West, R., Powell, J., & Pickering, A. (2006) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0588-8 · Cited by 97
Effects of acute caffeine administration on adolescents
Temple, J. L., Dewey, A. M., & Briatico, L. N. (2010) · Experimental and Clinical Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1037/a0021651 · Cited by 94
Elhai, J. D., Hall, B. J., Levine, J. C., & Dvorak, R. D. (2017) · Cyberpsychology Journal of Psychosocial Research on Cyberspace · doi:10.5817/cp2017-2-3 · Cited by 86
PER2 rs2304672 polymorphism moderates circadian-relevant reward circuitry activity in adolescents
Forbes, E. E., Dahl, R. E., Almeida, J. R. C., Ferrell, R. E., Nimgaonkar, V. L., Mansour, H., Sciarrillo, S. R., Holm, S. M., Rodriguez, E. E., & Phillips, M. L. (2012) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.10.012 · Cited by 83
Zhou, X., Zimmermann, K., Xin, F., Zhao, W., Derckx, R. T., Sassmannshausen, A., Scheele, D., Hurlemann, R., Weber, B., Kendrick, K. M., et al. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry: Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2019.04.006 · Cited by 77
Brown, R. M., Short, J. L., & Lawrence, A. J. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0015889 · Cited by 69
Brenhouse, H., Lukkes, J., & Andersen, S. (2013) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci3010143 · Cited by 68
Zayara, A. E., McIver, G., Valdivia, P. N., Lominac, K. D., McCreary, A. C., & Szumlinski, K. K. (2011) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-010-1996-3 · Cited by 64
Reliability and validity of an equanimity questionnaire: the two-factor equanimity scale (EQUA-S)
Juneau, C., Pellerin, N., Trives, E., Ricard, M., Shankland, R., & Dambrun, M. (2020) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.9405 · Cited by 59
Persistent effects of obesity: A neuroplasticity hypothesis
Matikainen‐Ankney, B. A., & Kravitz, A. V. (2018) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/nyas.13665 · Cited by 56
Wu, K., Politis, M., & Piccini, P. (2009) · Postgraduate Medical Journal · doi:10.1136/pgmj.2008.075820 · Cited by 55
Latent-level relations between DSM-5 PTSD symptom clusters and problematic smartphone use
Contractor, A. A., Frankfurt, S. B., Weiss, N. H., & Elhai, J. D. (2017) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.chb.2017.02.051 · Cited by 56
“This framework has been termed as the incentive-sensitization theory in substance addiction research (Robinson & Berridge, 2000), and as the process-related gratification perspective in smartphone addiction research (Song et al., 2004).”
Yap, J. J., Chartoff, E. H., Holly, E. N., Potter, D. N., Carlezon, W. A., & Miczek, K. A. (2015) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3796-7 · Cited by 55
Plasticity in the Hippocampus, Neurogenesis and Drugs of Abuse
Avchalumov, Y., & Mandyam, C. D. (2021) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci11030404 · Cited by 49
Wolf, M. E. (2003) · Molecular Interventions · doi:10.1124/mi.3.5.248 · Cited by 51
Crawford, C. A., Baella, S. A., Farley, C. M., Herbert, M. S., Horn, L. R., Campbell, R. H., & Zavala, A. R. (2011) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-010-2011-8 · Cited by 47
Paraphilias and paraphilic disorders in Parkinson's disease: a systematic review of the literature
Solla, P., Bortolato, M., Cannas, A., Mulas, C. S., & Marrosu, F. (2015) · Movement Disorders · doi:10.1002/mds.26157 · Cited by 46
Beadman, M., Das, R. K., Freeman, T. P., Scragg, P., West, R., & Kamboj, S. K. (2015) · Behaviour Research and Therapy · doi:10.1016/j.brat.2015.03.013 · Cited by 45
Enhanced methamphetamine self-administration in a neurodevelopmental rat model of schizophrenia
Brady, A. M., McCallum, S. E., Glick, S. D., & O’Donnell, P. (2008) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1195-7 · Cited by 43
Matson, L. M., Kasten, C. R., Boehm, S. L., & Grahame, N. J. (2014) · Alcoholism Clinical and Experimental Research · doi:10.1111/acer.12216 · Cited by 38
Otten, R., & Engels, R. C. M. E. (2013) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2011.00380.x · Cited by 34
Reducing Crime and Violence: Experimental Evidence on Adult Noncognitive Investments in Liberia
Blattman, C., Jamison, J. C., & Sheridan, M. (2016) · doi:10.1596/1813-9450-7648 · Cited by 27
Metadata
- Authors
- Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- ORCID
- Berridge, Kent C.
- Venue
- Addiction
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2000-08
- Volume
- 95
- Issue
- 8s2
- Pages
- 91-117
- ISSN
- 0965-2140 (ISSN-L)
- 1360-0443
- OpenAlex
- W2099319294
- Semantic Scholar
- e9124892b5168bfff444085ee3634faa89c804f3
- Cited by
- 1,507
- References
- 143
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 30 · 2024: 32 · 2023: 45 · 2022: 30 · 2021: 45 · 2020: 121 · 2019: 68 · 2018: 55 · 2017: 60 · 2016: 62 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 62 · 2013: 85 · 2012: 68
- FWCI
- 14.87
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
- hdl.handle.net
- Locations
- Addiction (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Epidemiology › Substance Abuse Treatment and Outcomes
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- incentive-sensitization theory, drug-seeking behavior, relapse, incentive salience, reward, mesolimbic dopamine system, neural sensitization, neural adaptation, negative reinforcement, positive reinforcement, drug liking, addiction treatment
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Antidepressive Agents, Behavior Therapy, Brain, Compulsive Behavior, Disease Models, Animal, Drug Tolerance, Environment, Humans, Models, Psychological, Motivation, Narcotic Antagonists, Narcotics, Neurobiology, Recurrence, Reinforcement, Psychology, Illicit Drugs, Behavior, Addictive, Substance-Related Disorders, 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
