Cited by 221Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeuropeptides and Animal Physiology

Dopamine or opioid stimulation of nucleus accumbens similarly amplify cue‐triggered ‘wanting’ for reward: entire core and medial shell mapped as substrates for PIT enhancement

Open access
Peciña, Susana, Berridge, Kent C.·2013·European Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Pavlovian cues [conditioned stimulus (CS+)] often trigger intense motivation to pursue and consume related reward [unconditioned stimulus (UCS)]. But cues do not always trigger the same intensity of motivation. Encountering a reward cue can be more tempting on some occasions than on others. What makes the same cue trigger more intense motivation to pursue reward on a particular encounter? The answer may be the level of incentive salience (‘wanting’) that is dynamically generated by mesocorticolimbic brain systems, influenced especially by dopamine and opioid neurotransmission in the nucleus accumbens (NA c) at that moment. We tested the ability of dopamine stimulation (by amphetamine microinjection) vs. mu opioid stimulation [by d‐Ala, nMe‐Phe, Glyol‐enkephalin (DAMGO) microinjection] of either the core or shell of the NA c to amplify cue‐triggered levels of motivation to pursue sucrose reward, measured with a Pavlovian‐Instrumental Transfer (PIT) procedure, a relatively pure assay of incentive salience. Cue‐triggered ‘wanting’ in PIT was enhanced by amphetamine or DAMGO microinjections equally, and also equally at nearly all sites throughout the entire core and medial shell (except for a small far‐rostral strip of shell). NA c dopamine/opioid stimulations specifically enhanced CS+ ability to trigger phasic peaks of ‘wanting’ to obtain UCS, without altering baseline efforts when CS+ was absent. We conclude that dopamine/opioid stimulation throughout nearly the entire NA c can causally amplify the reactivity of mesocorticolimbic circuits, and so magnify incentive salience or phasic UCS ‘wanting’ peaks triggered by a CS+. Mesolimbic amplification of incentive salience may explain why a particular cue encounter can become irresistibly tempting, even when previous encounters were successfully resisted before.

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

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

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/ejn.12174

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

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

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

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

Claims other papers make about this one

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

  • Repeated exposure transforms the reward into an 'expected reward', at which point dopamine neurons fire in response to stimuli that predict the delivery of the originally rewarding stimulus.

    “However, repeated exposure transforms the reward into an 'expected reward' , at which point dopamine neurons fire in response to stimuli that predict the delivery of the originally rewarding stim- ulus 45 .”

    From Substance use disorders: a comprehensive update of classification, epidemiology, neurobiology, clinical aspects, treatment and prevention (2023) · cites this paper as [45]

    The Pavlovian training section (page unavailable) reports that rats learned to respond to a cue repeatedly paired with sucrose. The Discussion (page unavailable) reports cue-triggered reward seeking amplified by dopamine stimulation, but it does not establish that repeated exposure turns a reward into an “expected reward” or that dopamine neurons fire in response to the predictive cue. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • In Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer (PIT), a Pavlovian reward CS+ cue (sound) elicits small peaks of 'wanting' during extinction test.

    “In Pavlovian-Instrumental transfer (PIT; right), a Pavlovian reward CS+ cue (sound) elicits small peaks of ‘wanting’ during extinction test (bottom).”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Pecina and Berridge, 2013

  • An hour of continuously high levels of brain dopamine, produced in a rat after microinjection of amphetamine in nucleus accumbens, does not actually cause continuously high 'wanting' motivation.

    “For example, an hour of continuously high levels of brain dopamine, produced in a rat after microinjection of amphetamine in nucleus accumbens, does not actually cause continuously high ‘wanting’ motivation.”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Pecina and Berridge, 2013

  • Intense peaks of 'wanting' to obtain a reward come and go during the session together as reward cues are presented and withdrawn.

    “Instead, its intense peaks of ‘wanting’ to obtain a reward come and go during the session together as reward cues are presented and withdrawn (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Pecina and Berridge, 2013; Figure 2).”

    From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Pecina and Berridge, 2013

  • In animal studies, sensitization increases neuronal firing in VTA-accumbens-pallidal pathways that code incentive salience as well as the behavioral ability of reward cues to trigger frenzied bursts of effort to obtain the reward.

    “For example, in animal studies, sensitization increases neuronal firing in VTA–accumbens–pallidal pathways that code incentive salience as well as the behavioral ability of reward cues to trigger frenzied bursts of effort to obtain the reward (Peciña & Berridge, 2013; Tindell et al., 2005; Wyvell & Berridge, 2001).”

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Peciña, S., & Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan–Dearborn (US)
  • University of Michigan (US)
Corresponding author
Peciña, Susana
Venue
European Journal of Neuroscience
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2013-03-17
Volume
37
Issue
9
Pages
1529-1540
ISSN
  • 0953-816X (ISSN-L)
  • 1460-9568
OpenAlex
W2164647828
Cited by
216
References
81
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 14 · 2021: 12 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 14 · 2015: 20 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 1
FWCI
8.67
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • European Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Deep Blue (University of Michigan) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-63649, R01MH063649)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA015188, R01DA015188)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
Keywords
incentive salience, nucleus accumbens, dopamine, amphetamine, DAMGO, Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer, conditioned stimulus, mesocorticolimbic circuit, nucleus accumbens shell, nucleus accumbens core, sucrose reward, motivation
MeSH terms
Amphetamine, Animals, Brain Mapping, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Male, Motivation, Nucleus Accumbens, Reward, Dopamine Agents, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Enkephalin, Ala(2)-MePhe(4)-Gly(5)-, 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.

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