Cited by 105Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies

Using fMRI to study reward processing in humans: past, present, and future

Open access
Wang, Kainan S., Smith, David V., Delgado, Mauricio R.·2016·Journal of Neurophysiology

Abstract

Functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) is a noninvasive tool used to probe cognitive and affective processes. Although fMRI provides indirect measures of neural activity, the advent of fMRI has allowed for1) the corroboration of significant animal findings in the human brain, and2) the expansion of models to include more common human attributes that inform behavior. In this review, we briefly consider the neural basis of the blood oxygenation level dependent signal to set up a discussion of how fMRI studies have applied it in examining cognitive models in humans and the promise of using fMRI to advance such models. Specifically, we illustrate the contribution that fMRI has made to the study of reward processing, focusing on the role of the striatum in encoding reward-related learning signals that drive anticipatory and consummatory behaviors. For instance, we discuss how fMRI can be used to link neural signals (e.g., striatal responses to rewards) to individual differences in behavior and traits. While this functional segregation approach has been constructive to our understanding of reward-related functions, many fMRI studies have also benefitted from a functional integration approach that takes into account how interconnected regions (e.g., corticostriatal circuits) contribute to reward processing. We contend that future work using fMRI will profit from using a multimodal approach, such as combining fMRI with noninvasive brain stimulation tools (e.g., transcranial electrical stimulation), that can identify causal mechanisms underlying reward processing. Consequently, advancements in implementing fMRI will promise new translational opportunities to inform our understanding of psychopathologies.

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 · 10.1152/jn.00333.2015

Cites

292 of 292 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?

  • fMRI studies find greater brain activation when reward is anticipated and received.

    “In line with reward circuitry, studies utilizing fMRI to measure reward processing revealed increased brain activation signals in response to the anticipation and receipt of reward (Wang et al., 2016).”

    From The effects of early life stress on reward processing (2018) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2016

  • These tasks each include an anticipation phase and a delivery phase; brain activity during these phases is used to infer motivation and reward responsiveness, respectively.

    “Both tasks have two phases, an anticipation phase, in which the subject is given information about the potential for reward, and a delivery phase, in which the reward is received. By measuring brain activity during the anticipation and delivery phases, a motivational component and a reward responsiveness component can be inferred, respectively (Knutson et al., 2000; Lutz and Widmer, 2014; Wang et”

    From The effects of early life stress on reward processing (2018) · cites this paper as Wang et al., 2016

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Hoge RD, Atkinson J, Gill B, Crelier GR, Marrett S, Pike GB. Investigation of BOLD signal dependence on cerebral blood flow and oxygen consumption: the deoxyhemoglobin dilution model. Magn Reson Med 42: 849–863, 1999. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  2. Rescorla RA, Wagner AR. A theory of Pavlovian conditioning: variations in the effectiveness of reinforcement and nonreinforcement. In: Classical Conditioning: Current Research and Theory. New York: Appleton-Century-Crofts, 1972, p. 64–99. [Google Scholar]

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wang, K. S., Smith, D. V., & Delgado, M. R.
Affiliations
Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (US)
Corresponding author
Delgado, Mauricio R.
Venue
Journal of Neurophysiology
Published
2016-03-01
Volume
115
Issue
3
Pages
1664-1678
ISSN
  • 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
  • 1522-1598
OpenAlex
W2228455888
Cited by
105
References
292
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 3
FWCI
1.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) (R01-DA027764)
  • HHS | NIH | National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) (F32-MH107175)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Functional Brain Connectivity Studies
Keywords
reward processing, striatum, BOLD signal, individual differences, functional integration, corticostriatal circuits, transcranial electrical stimulation, causal mechanisms, psychopathology, translational neuroscience
MeSH terms
Brain, Brain Mapping, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Reward

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