REVIEW ON CPP: Measuring reward with the conditioned place preference (CPP) paradigm: update of the last decade
Abstract
Conditioned place preference (CPP) continues to be one of the most popular models to study the motivational effects of drugs and non‐drug treatments in experimental animals. This is obvious from a steady year‐to‐year increase in the number of publications reporting the use this model. Since the compilation of the preceding review in 1998, more than 1000 new studies using place conditioning have been published, and the aim of the present review is to provide an overview of these recent publications. There are a number of trends and developments that are obvious in the literature of the last decade. First, as more and more knockout and transgenic animals become available, place conditioning is increasingly used to assess the motivational effects of drugs or non‐drug rewards in genetically modified animals. Second, there is a still small but growing literature on the use of place conditioning to study the motivational aspects of pain, a field of pre‐clinical research that has so far received little attention, because of the lack of appropriate animal models. Third, place conditioning continues to be widely used to study tolerance and sensitization to the rewarding effects of drugs induced by pre‐treatment regimens. Fourth, extinction/reinstatement procedures in place conditioning are becoming increasingly popular. This interesting approach is thought to model certain aspects of relapse to addictive behavior and has previously almost exclusively been studied in drug self‐administration paradigms. It has now also become established in the place conditioning literature and provides an additional and technically easy approach to this important phenomenon. The enormous number of studies to be covered in this review prevented in‐depth discussion of many methodological, pharmacological or neurobiological aspects; to a large extent, the presentation of data had to be limited to a short and condensed summary of the most relevant findings.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Social conditioned place preference assays have traditionally been used to investigate the rewarding properties of stimuli such as drugs of abuse and natural rewards.
“CPP assays have traditionally been used to investigate the rewarding properties of stimuli, such as drugs of abuse and natural rewards [39].”
From Neural circuits regulating prosocial behaviors (2023) · cites this paper as [39]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 1,018 · Cited by 1,336
- Authors
- Tzschentke, T. M.
- Affiliations
- Grünenthal Group (Germany) (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Tzschentke, Thomas M.
- Venue
- Addiction Biology
- Publisher
- Wiley
- Published
- 2007-07-30
- Volume
- 12
- Issue
- 3-4
- Pages
- 227-462
- ISSN
- 1355-6215 (ISSN-L)
- 1369-1600
- OpenAlex
- W1913760354
- Cited by
- 1,336
- References
- 1,018
- Citations by year
- 2026: 29 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 49 · 2023: 52 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 71 · 2020: 81 · 2019: 72 · 2018: 79 · 2017: 83 · 2016: 91 · 2015: 88 · 2014: 91 · 2013: 92 · 2012: 80
- FWCI
- 6.02
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Addiction Biology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Keywords
- conditioned place preference, reward, self-administration
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Choice Behavior, Conditioning, Classical, Extinction, Psychological, Humans, Motivation, Research, Reward, Social Environment, Substance-Related Disorders, Animals, Genetically Modified
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