Cited by 480Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorGambling Behavior and Treatments

The neural substrates of reward processing in humans: the modern role of FMRI

McClure, Samuel M., York, Michele K., Montague, P. Read·2004·The Neuroscientist

Abstract

Experimental work in animals has identified numerous neural structures involved in reward processing and reward-dependent learning. Until recently, this work provided the primary basis for speculations about the neural substrates of human reward processing. The widespread use of neuroimaging technology has changed this situation dramatically over the past decade through the use of PET and fMRI. Here, the authors focus on the role played by fMRI studies, where recent work has replicated the animal results in human subjects and has extended the view of putative reward-processing neural structures. In particular, fMRI work has identified a set of reward-related brain structures including the orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, ventral striatum, and medial prefrontal cortex. Moreover, the human experiments have probed the dependence of human reward responses on learned expectations, context, timing, and the reward dimension. Current experiments aim to assess the function of human reward-processing structures to determine how they allow us to predict, assess, and act in response to rewards. The authors review current accomplishments in the study of human reward processing and focus their discussion on explanations directed particularly at the role played by the ventral striatum. They discuss how these findings may contribute to a better understanding of deficits associated with Parkinson’s disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1073858404263526

Cites

62 of 62 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 63 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
McClure, S. M., York, M. K., & Montague, P. R.
Affiliations
Baylor College of Medicine (US)
Corresponding author
McClure, Samuel M.
Venue
The Neuroscientist
Published
2004-06
Volume
10
Issue
3
Pages
260-268
ISSN
  • 1073-8584 (ISSN-L)
  • 1089-4098
OpenAlex
W2118755615
Cited by
480
References
63
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 7 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 26 · 2016: 23 · 2015: 24 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 42 · 2012: 32
FWCI
1.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • The Neuroscientist (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH052797)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01DA011723)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (K23NS041254)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Clinical Psychology › Gambling Behavior and Treatments
Keywords
reward processing, neural correlates, ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, medial prefrontal cortex, reward timing, reward prediction, Parkinson's disease
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Animals, Brain, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Neurons, Parkinson Disease, Radiography, 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