CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,507Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorSubstance Abuse Treatment and OutcomesNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies

The psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view

Open access
Robinson, Terry E., Berridge, Kent C.·2000·Addiction
DOI 10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.19.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

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.

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

Crossref · 10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.19.x

Cites

142 of 142 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 226 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    Two measures, activity/energy and eyeblink rate, increased progressively with repeated amphetamine treatment.

    “Two measures increased progressively with repeated amphetamine treatment: activity/energy and eyeblink rate.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strakowski & Sax 140

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    A second treatment with amphetamine elicited a significantly greater increase than the first in four behavioral measures: activity/energy, mood, rate and amount of speech, and eyeblink rate.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strakowski et al. 139

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    In Childress et al.'s study, the two brain regions in addicts that showed the greatest change in cerebral blood-flow in response to viewing drug-related stimuli were the amygdala and the caudate.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Childress et al. 147

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    Craving-correlated signal increases were found in the nucleus accumbens region, parahippocampal cortex and parts of the lateral prefrontal cortex.

    “Cravingcorrelated signal increases were found in the nucleus accumbens region, parahippocampal cortex and parts of the lateral prefrontal cortex.146”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [146]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    Signal decreases were seen in the amygdala, temporal pole and medial frontal cortex.

    “Signal decreases were seen in the amygdala, temporal pole and the medial frontal cortex.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Breiter et al. 146

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims. 44
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 30

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Blood flow increased significantly in the amygdala and decreased significantly in the caudate and lenticular nucleus.

    “Blood ow increased signi cantly in the amygdala and decreased signi cantly in the caudate and lenticular nucleus.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Childress et al. 147

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    For eyeblink rate, there was no effect of the first amphetamine treatment relative to placebo, but an increase emerged with subsequent drug treatments at the same dose.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strakowski & Sax 140

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    There are now a reasonable number of imaging studies showing that the mesocorticolimbic projection systems are engaged when addicts are given drugs or exposed to drug-associated stimuli, and that in some cases this is associated with reports of craving.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Wang et al. reported changes in metabolism only in the orbitofrontal cortex, left insular cortex and cerebellum.

    “Wang et al. 150 reported changes in metabolism only in the orbitofrontal cortex, left insular cortex and cerebellum.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Wang et al. 150

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingcitation

    Sensitization is indicated by a significantly greater behavioral response in amphetamine than in saline pretreated animals after a challenge injection.

    “Sensitization is indicated by a signi cantly greater behavioral response in amphetamine than in saline pretreated animals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [73]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    When sensitized, the incentive salience process produces compulsive patterns of drug-seeking behavior.

    “We have hypothesized that when sensitized, this incentive salience process produces compulsive patterns of drug-seeking behavior.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S1 (asserted), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    The persistence of neural sensitization leaves addicts susceptible to relapse even long after the discontinuation of drug use.

    “Furthermore, the persistence of neural sensitization is hypothesized to leave addicts susceptible to relapse even long after the discontinuation of drug use.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In addicts, the subjective pleasurable effects and the motivational effects of drugs may be merely correlated effects; they can be dissociated and there is no necessary causal relationship between them.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Many people experiment with a variety of potentially addictive drugs, but most do not become addicted.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisereasoning

    The factors responsible for experimental or casual drug use may or may not be directly relevant to the problem of addiction.

    “Indeed, the factors responsible for experimental or casual drug use may or may not be directly relevant to the problem of addiction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In addicts, the association between the hedonic consequences of drug consumption and the ability of drugs and drug-related stimuli to motivate behavior often becomes dissociated, revealing that the relationship between the motivational force of drugs and their hedonic consequences may not be a necessary causal relationship.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationcitation

    Positive reinforcement, taken as a behaviorist concept, is only a description of a behavioral effect, not an explanation of the effect.

    “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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Premisenone given

    Drug-seeking and drug-taking in the addict may involve factors that are qualitatively different from those that motivate drug-taking in the nonaddict.

    “Drug-seeking and drug-taking in the addict may involve factors that are qualitatively different from those that motivate drug-taking in the nonaddict.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Repeated treatment with amphetamine increases ethanol intake when rats are tested 3 months after the cessation of amphetamine treatment, suggesting there may be long-lasting sensitization to ethanol's rewarding effects.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [47]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [48]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [49]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Sensitization is dose-dependent; the most robust sensitization occurs after treatment with relatively high doses.

    “Sensitization is dose-dependent; the most robust sensitization occurs after treatment with relatively high doses.51,52”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [51]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [52]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Cross-sensitization between stress and ethanol has been reported.

    “Cross-sensitization between stress and ethanol has also been reported.44”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [34]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Gonadal hormones have been implicated in sex differences in susceptibility to sensitization, and these sex differences are attenuated by castration of male rats.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [64]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [65]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [66]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In context-specific sensitization, only animals treated with drug in the test environment usually express sensitization; animals treated with drug in a different environment often fail to express sensitization in the test environment.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [73]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [74]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [75]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Factors that render people susceptible to sensitization will also contribute to individual variation in susceptibility to addiction.

    “Nevertheless, the incentive - sensitization theory posits that factors which render people susceptible to sensitization will also contribute to individual variation in susceptibility to addiction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    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 that have been associatively paired with drug administration.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [73]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Sensitization 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 factors associated with drug administration.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    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.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [88]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The ability of context to act as an occasion-setter and to modulate sensitization would interact with the ability of specific drug-associated conditioned stimuli to trigger craving as a classically conditioned response, combining to provide very strong contextual control over both craving and relapse.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [3]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Postsynaptic adaptations in sensitized animals include increased sensitivity of dopamine D1 receptors and decreased sensitivity of glutamate receptors in the nucleus accumbens.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [78]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [123]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [127]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Physiologic responses would not be expected to exhibit sensitization from animal studies.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Strakowski et al. 144

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    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.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 4 sources checked
    • cites [3]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [19]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [155]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The incentive-sensitization hypothesis makes strong predictions regarding neural sensitization in human addicts, but not necessarily about which specific behaviors might best reflect neural sensitization.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisereasoning

    The dopamine hedonia hypothesis is still present in the scientific literature.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In rats, some behaviors show robust sensitization (rotational behavior, repetitive sniffing, repetitive head movements), whereas other seemingly related stereotyped behaviors do not (oral movements).

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [34]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [85]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The PAG has projections to the VTA, and the VTA is the origin of ascending dopamine projections to the nucleus accumbens and neocortex.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisenone given

    The doses used in studies with humans are lower than those typically used in animal studies, and drugs are often given orally.

    “the doses used in studies with humans are lower than those typically used in animal studies, and drugs are often given orally.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    In humans, increased dopamine neurotransmission is neither necessary nor sufficient for psychostimulants to produce subjective pleasurable effects.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Incentive salience determines the value of incentives and controls seeking and instrumental behavior regarding them.

    “It is incentive salience that determines the value of incentives, and that controls seeking and instrumental behavior regarding them.19”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Activation of the incentive-salience neural system may constitute an implicit rather than explicit psychological process, similar to implicit memory or implicit perceptual processes, and can act sometimes as an unconscious motivational process.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 5 sources checked
    • cites [182]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [183]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [30]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [155]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    A more thorough examination of the evidence does not support the hypothesis that dopamine activation has a necessary causal relationship with subjective pleasure, or that dopamine mediates pleasure.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [173]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some drug-induced persistent alterations may contribute directly to the development and/or manifestation of sensitized incentive salience, and others may contribute to addiction via alternate mechanisms.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Addicts may report they are miserable, their life is in ruins, and that even the drug is not that great anymore.

    “Addicts may report they are miserable, their life is in ruins, and that even the drug is not that great anymore.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Bupropion has been reported to increase abstinence from cigarettes for smokers.

    “More recently, a different antidepressant, bupropion (Wellbutrin), has been reported to increase abstinence from cigarettes for smokers.202,203”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [202]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [203]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    A medication that reversed sensitization-related neuroadaptations would not be effective if after treatment a person resumed drug-taking, and reinitiated the sensitization process.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Pharmacotherapeutic approaches which fail to address the neuroadaptive processes that lead to addiction in the first place will probably provide only symptomatic relief, and in the long term will probably be of limited efficacy.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Substitution therapies might be effective in managing addictive disorders, but they do not eliminate the addiction.

    “Although substitution therapies might be effective in managing addictive disorders, it must be acknowledged that they do not eliminate the addiction.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • 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.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Opioid antagonists 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.

    “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 ).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [19]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Cocaine addicts treated with such vaccines 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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    If acamprosate acts primarily on NMDA receptors, if those NMDA receptors are in the mesoaccumbens system or its major connections, and if NMDA receptors are important mediators of the expression of neural sensitization, then acamprosate might conceivably interfere with an NMDA mechanism involved in the expression of sensitization.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [124]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    It is unlikely that people would be willing to take agents that block the development of sensitization before they become addicts, and so these are not likely to be useful therapeutic tools.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: People would be unwilling to take agents that block the development of sensitization before they become addicts.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The optimal approach presumably would be to reverse the neural changes underlying sensitization in addicts.

    “The optimal approach presumably would be to reverse the neural changes underlying sensitization in addicts.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The relation between acamprosate and the incentive-salience hypothesis must remain unclear for the time being.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Immunotherapies fail to reverse the neuroadaptive processes responsible for addiction, even though they may impede their further growth.

    “Of course, this approach also fails to reverse the neuroadaptive processes responsible for addiction, even though it may impede their further growth.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    For several therapeutic drugs, such as some antidepressants, even the goal of a modest increase in abstinence is often not reached.

    “For several therapeutic drugs, such as some antidepressants, even this goal is often not reached.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is possible that acamprosate might act in part by modulating the sensitized incentive salience of drug-related stimuli.

    “It is possible that acamprosate might act in part by modulating the sensitized incentive salience of drugrelated stimuli.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Bupropion is a monoamine uptake blocker, and modulates both norepinephrine and dopamine activity.

    “Bupropion is a monoamine uptake blocker, and modulates both norepinephrine and dopamine activity.[204][205][206]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [204]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [205]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [206]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Increased numbers of dopamine transporter molecules after bupropion could facilitate re-uptake, and so exert a suppressive effect on dopamine neurotransmission that would oppose the original re-uptake blocking action.

    “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).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [207]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [208]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Immunotherapies for cocaine abuse involve treatment with primary antibodies or catalytic antibodies to cocaine.

    “Finally, there recently has been interest in developing immunotherapies for cocaine abuse, 18 which involve treatment with primary antibodies or catalytic antibodies to cocaine.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Using drugs to block the development of sensitization should be effective, and in animal studies many such dopaminergic and glutaminergic agents have been identified.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [124]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [124]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [125]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    The persistence of neural sensitization may mean that in a neurobiological sense once an addict always an addict.

    “Sadly, the persistence of neural sensitization may mean, to paraphrase Alcoholics Anonymous, that in a neurobiological sense once an addict always an addict.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In developing such compounds the incentive-sensitization theory posits that their neural target must be the neural substrate responsible specifically for sensitized incentive salience, and it is not well established that this substrate is the same as that responsible for psychomotor sensitization.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [216]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [217]

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    It might be more reasonable to hope to modulate the expression of neural sensitization, even if one could not reverse it.

    “It might be more reasonable to hope to modulate the expression of neural sensitization, even if one could not reverse it.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Psychotherapeutic approaches may offer the best hope for addicts today.

    “They may offer the best hope for addicts today.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    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.

    “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.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
70 of 70

  • 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.”
7 of 7

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?

  • Cycles of demyelination and remyelination in multiple sclerosis are associated with fluctuations in conduction velocity and symptomatology, including psychotic symptomatology.

    “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]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 22

  1. INSTITUTE OF MEDICINE COMMITTEE ON OPPORTUNITIES IN DRUG ABUSE RESEARCH (1996) Pathways of Addiction (Washington, DC, National Academy Press).
  2. 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.
  3. WIKLER, A. (1948) Recent progress in research on the neurophysiological basis of morphine ad- diction, American Journal of Psychiatry, 105, 329- 338.
  4. 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).
  5. 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).
  6. 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).
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. SATO, M. (1986) Acute exacerbation of metham- phetamine psychosis and lasting dopaminergic upersensitivity-a clinical survey, Psychopharma- cology Bulletin, 22, 751-756. 136.
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. TOATES, F. (1986) Motivational Systems (Cam- bridge, Cambridge University Press). 182.
  20. 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.
  21. TELLA, S. R., LADENHEIM, B. & CADET, J. L. (1997) Differential regulation of dopamine trans- porter after chronic self-administration of bupro- pion and nomifensine, Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, 281, 508-513. 207. LITTLE, K. Y., ZHANG, L., DESMOND, T., FREY, K. A., DALACK, G. W. & CASSIN, B. J. (1999) Striatal dopaminergic abnormalities in human cocaine users, American Journal of Psychiatry, 156, 238-245. 208.
  22. 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

Related

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
DOI
10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.19.x
OpenAlex
W2099319294
Semantic Scholar
e9124892b5168bfff444085ee3634faa89c804f3
Cited by
1,507
References
142
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
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 640 d)
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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-10.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-10.

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