Cited by 764Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research

Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward “Wanting” without Enhanced “Liking” or Response Reinforcement

Open access
Wyvell, Cindy L., Berridge, Kent C.·2000·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Amphetamine microinjection into the nucleus accumbens shell enhanced the ability of a Pavlovian reward cue to trigger increased instrumental performance for sucrose reward in a pure conditioned incentive paradigm. Rats were first trained to press one of two levers to obtain sucrose pellets. They were separately conditioned to associate a Pavlovian cue (30 sec light) with free sucrose pellets. On test days, the rats received bilateral microinjection of intra-accumbens vehicle or amphetamine (0.0, 2.0, 10.0, or 20.0 μg/0.5 μl), and lever pressing was tested in the absence of any reinforcement contingency, while the Pavlovian cue alone was freely presented at intervals throughout the session. Amphetamine microinjection selectively potentiated the cue-elicited increase in sucrose-associated lever pressing, although instrumental responding was not reinforced by either sucrose or the cue during the test. Intra-accumbens amphetamine can therefore potentiate cue-triggered incentive motivation for reward in the absence of primary or secondary reinforcement. Using the taste reactivity measure of hedonic impact, it was shown that intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to increase positive hedonic reaction patterns elicited by sucrose (i.e., sucrose “liking”) at doses that effectively increase sucrose “wanting.” We conclude that nucleus accumbens dopamine specifically mediates the ability of reward cues to trigger “wanting” (incentive salience) for their associated rewards, independent of both hedonic impact and response reinforcement.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

Intra-accumbens shell amphetamine selectively potentiated a Pavlovian sucrose cue’s ability to trigger instrumental responding for sucrose under extinction, without enhancing sucrose “liking” in taste reactivity. The authors conclude that accumbens dopamine mediates cue-triggered incentive salience (“wanting”) independent of hedonic impact and response reinforcement.

Key findings

  • Amphetamine microinjection into the nucleus accumbens shell dose-dependently enhanced CS+-elicited pressing on the sucrose lever, with cue-triggered responding increasing to nearly 400% of the no-cue baseline; the effect was absent on the nonsucrose control lever during CS+ presentation.
  • In the nonlocalized CS control group, amphetamine selectively enhanced sucrose lever pressing in the presence of an auditory CS+ to >200% of vehicle levels, but not in the absence of CS+ or during CS−.
  • In taste reactivity testing, intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to increase positive hedonic reactions to a sucrose-quinine mixture; hedonic reactions showed a trend toward dose-dependent suppression (p = 0.098), significant when the middle dose was excluded (p < 0.05).
  • Aversive reactions were mildly enhanced after amphetamine (p < 0.05), with only aversive head shakes significantly increased (p < 0.01), and only at the 10 µg dose.

Methods

  • Experiment 1 used a pure conditioned incentive/Pavlovian-instrumental transfer paradigm in female Sprague Dawley rats: instrumental training for sucrose pellets on a variable-interval 45 sec schedule, Pavlovian conditioning with a 30 sec cue light paired with sucrose, then extinction tests with free cue presentations after bilateral intra-accumbens shell microinjection of vehicle or amphetamine (0.0, 2.0, 10.0, or 20.0 µg/0.5 µl).
  • Experiment 2 used taste reactivity testing in female rats with oral cannulas; after the same vehicle/amphetamine doses, a bittersweet 0.1 M sucrose plus 1.5 × 10−4 M quinine hydrochloride solution was infused, and videotaped orofacial reactions were scored blind.
  • Analyses used ANOVAs with Bonferroni post hoc tests for lever pressing and Friedman ANOVAs with Tukey post hoc tests for taste reactivity; histology verified cannula placements, excluding off-target subjects.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the spread of the drug microinjection was unknown and that future studies are needed to verify whether the accumbens shell specifically mediates the enhanced pure conditioned incentive motivation.
  • Evident from the text: final sample sizes after histology exclusions were modest (eight subjects per group in Experiment 1; 11 subjects in Experiment 2), and only female Sprague Dawley rats were tested.
  • Evident from the text: dopamine involvement is inferred from local amphetamine microinjection rather than direct measurement of dopamine release or receptor-specific manipulation.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.20-21-08122.2000

Cites

82 of 82 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 70 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to increase positive hedonic reaction patterns elicited by sucrose at doses that effectively increase sucrose wanting.

    “Using the taste reactivity measure of hedonic impact, it was shown that intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to increase positive hedonic reaction patterns elicited by sucrose (i.e., sucrose “liking”) at doses that effectively increase sucrose “wanting.””
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Amphetamine microinjection into the nucleus accumbens shell enhanced the ability of a Pavlovian reward cue to trigger increased instrumental performance for sucrose reward in a pure conditioned incentive paradigm.

    “Amphetamine microinjection into the nucleus accumbens shell enhanced the ability of a Pavlovian reward cue to trigger increased instrumental performance for sucrose reward in a pure conditioned incentive paradigm.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Presentation of the CS random nonconditioned cue slightly increased pressing on both levers.

    “Presentation of the CS random nonconditioned cue slightly increased pressing on both levers”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    There was a trend of increased responding under the higher drug doses in the absence of cues.

    “there was a trend of increased responding under the higher drug doses”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Pressing on the sucrose lever in the absence of cues was not significantly enhanced by intra-accumbens amphetamine in either group.

    “pressing on the sucrose lever in the absence of cues was not significantly enhanced by intraaccumbens amphetamine in either group”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 27
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Amphetamine microinjection selectively potentiated the cue-elicited increase in sucrose-associated lever pressing, although instrumental responding was not reinforced by either sucrose or the cue during the test.

    “Amphetamine microinjection selectively potentiated the cue-elicited increase in sucrose-associated lever pressing, although instrumental responding was not reinforced by either sucrose or the cue during the test.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Pressing on the sucrose lever was reliably increased by presentation of the CS+ for rats in the primary and nonlocalized groups, both after vehicle microinjection and after all doses of amphetamine, although the effect was much greater after amphetamine than after vehicle.

    “Pressing on the sucrose lever was reliably increased by presentation of the CSϩ for rats in the primary and nonlocalized groups, both after vehicle microinjection (F (1,31) ϭ 8.32; p Ͻ 0.02) and after all doses of amphetamine ( p Ͻ 0.01 for every dose), although the effect of the CSϩ on pressing was much greater after amphetamine than after vehicle”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the absence of cues, amphetamine microinjection produced an increase in pressing, especially on the control lever, and this effect occurred in both groups.

    “In the absence of cues, amphetamine microinjection produced an increase in pressing, especially on the control lever, and this effect occurred in both groups”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    There were significant effects on lever pressing for the drug dose factor and the Pavlovian cue presence, and a significant interaction between cue and group.

    “There were also significant effects on lever pressing for the drug dose factor (F (3,270) ϭ 3.164; p Ͻ 0.05) and the Pavlovian cue presence (F (1,270) ϭ 30.651; p Ͻ 0.001), and there was a significant interaction between cue ϫ group (F (1,270) ϭ 5.671; p Ͻ 0.05).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the absence of cues, the only effect of amphetamine microinjection was to slightly increase responding on both levers, especially the nonsucrose control lever.

    “In the absence of cues, the only effect of amphetamine microinjection was to slightly increase responding on both levers, especially the nonsucrose control lever.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “In the absence of the CSϩ reward cue, amphetamine had only a minimal general motor effect on pressing of both levers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Instrumental responding was increased up to 400% by intra-accumbens amphetamine during presentation of the CS+ sucrose cue but not during presentation of the control CS random or CS− cues.

    “Instrumental responding was increased up to 400% by intra-accumbens amphetamine during presentation of the CSϩ sucrose cue but not during presentation of the control CS random or CSϪ cues.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “Intraaccumbens amphetamine nearly tripled the incentive impact triggered by the CSϩ sucrose cue, expressed by the increase in pressing elicited by the cue, but amphetamine had relatively little effect on pressing in the absence of the cue.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Amphetamine produced a trend toward a dose-dependent suppression of sucrose-elicited hedonic reaction patterns (p = 0.098), which became significant when the middle dose was excluded (p < 0.05).

    “amphetamine produced a trend toward a dose-dependent suppression of sucrose-elicited hedonic reaction patterns ( p ϭ 0.098; Friedman ANOVA), which became significant when the middle dose was excluded ( p Ͻ 0.05; Friedman ANOVA).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The CS+ cue presence reversed the direction of amphetamine potentiation from the control lever to the sucrose lever and dramatically amplified the magnitude of response potentiation.

    “The CSϩ cue presence reversed the direction of amphetamine potentiation from the control lever to the sucrose lever and dramatically amplified the magnitude of response potentiation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    In the absence of any cue, amphetamine microinjection produced a greater percentage increase in pressing on the control lever rather than on the sucrose lever, although the absolute rate of pressing on the control lever was always low.

    “In the absence of any cue, amphetamine microinjection produced a greater percentage increase in pressing on the control lever rather than on the sucrose lever (although the absolute rate of pressing on the control lever was always low).”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “In the absence of the cue, the percentage increase in pressing was greatest on the control lever.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The incentive salience hypothesis of dopamine function in reward suggests that accumbens dopamine neurotransmission modulates the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues, which triggers a motivational state of wanting for both the cue and its associated reward.

    “The incentive salience hypothesis of dopamine function in reward suggests that accumbens dopamine neurotransmission modulates the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues, which triggers a motivational state of “wanting” for both the cue and its associated reward”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Berridge and Valenstein, 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Robinson and Berridge, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Berridge and Robinson, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The hedonia hypothesis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards.

    “the hedonia hypothesis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Wise et al., 1978

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Wise, 1985 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gardner and Lowinson, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine agonists can increase food intake and instrumental performance for food-related cues.

    “intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and instrumental performance for food-related cues”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cador et al., 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Burns et al., 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Sills and Vaccarino, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives.

    “Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Blackburn et al., 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Phillips et al., 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Reward learning hypotheses suggest that dopamine mediates either response reinforcement or associative predictions of reward.

    “Reward learning hypotheses suggest that dopamine mediates either response reinforcement or associative predictions of reward”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Di Chiara, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Schultz et al., 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Conditioned food preferences based on associative learning increase positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns.

    “Conditioned food preferences based on associative learning also increase positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Delamater et al., 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Berridge and Schulkin, 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Breslin et al., 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Systemic dopamine antagonists specifically blocked the ability of a Pavlovian reward cue to trigger increases in responding for the associated reward in a conditioned incentive paradigm.

    “They used a conditioned incentive paradigm to show that systemic dopamine antagonists specifically blocked the ability of a Pavlovian reward cue to trigger increases in responding for the associated reward”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dickinson et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Microinjections of an opioid agonist into the accumbens shell increased food intake and enhanced hedonic reaction patterns to an oral infusion of sucrose, but did not increase aversive reactions to quinine.

    “Pecin ˜a and Berridge (2000) found that microinjections of an opioid agonist into the accumbens shell increased food intake and enhanced hedonic reaction patterns to an oral inf usion of sucrose (but did not increase aversive reactions to quinine).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Total scores of lever pressing during the responding bouts were square root transformed to achieve homogeneity of variance as assessed by the Mauchly Sphericity test.

    “total scores of lever pressing during the responding bouts were first square root transformed to achieve homogeneity of variance as assessed by the Mauchly Sphericity test.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns of rats are increased by many of the same physiological, psychological, and pharmacological manipulations that increase human subjective ratings of taste palatability.

    “Positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns of rats are increased by many of the same physiological, psychological, and pharmacological manipulations that increase human subjective ratings of taste palatability”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Berridge, 2000a

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Opioid receptor activation in accumbens shell selectively potentiated the positive hedonic impact of a taste, apparently making food more liked as well as more wanted.

    “Thus, opioid receptor activation in accumbens shell selectively potentiated the positive hedonic impact of a taste, apparently making food more “liked,” as well as more “wanted.””
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductown data

    Six subjects with cannula placements located outside of the nucleus accumbens shell were excluded from the data analysis, resulting in a final total of eight subjects per group.

    “six subjects with cannula placements located outside of the nucleus accumbens shell were excluded from the data analysis, which resulted in a final total of eight subjects per group.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Pharmacological manipulations that enhance the hedonic impact of a taste in the taste reactivity paradigm produce selective increases in positive hedonic reaction patterns and either no change or a reduction in negative aversive reaction patterns.

    “Pharmacological manipulations that enhance the hedonic impact of a taste in the taste reactivity paradigm produce selective increases in positive hedonic reaction patterns and either no change or a reduction in negative aversive reaction patterns.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Treit and Berridge, 1990

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Doyle et al., 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pecin ˜a and Berridge 1996, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The effect of the CS random nonconditioned cue was to mildly enhance responding on both the sucrose and nonsucrose control levers indiscriminately, consistent with an increase in general activity.

    “This indicates that the effect of the CS random nonconditioned cue was to mildly enhance responding on both the sucrose and nonsucrose control levers indiscriminately, which is consistent with an increase in general activity.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    The taste reactivity paradigm provides a way of specifically assessing the hedonic impact of a sucrose reward by measuring affective reactions elicited by oral infusions of taste stimuli.

    “The taste reactivity paradigm (Grill and Norgren, 1978) provides a way of specifically assessing the hedonic impact of a sucrose reward by measuring affective reactions elicited by oral inf usions of taste stimuli”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Grill and Norgren, 1978

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Grill and Berridge, 1985

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Berridge, 1996

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Study design and conductnone given

    The use of two stationary cameras ensured a close-up view of the rats' faces and forelimbs while eliminating off-camera time.

    “The use of two stationary cameras ensured a close-up view of the rats' faces and forelimbs while eliminating off-camera time.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The sucrose cue both redirected and further magnified the effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine, switching the enhancement of responding from the control lever to the sucrose lever in an incentive-specific manner.

    “This suggests that the sucrose cue both redirected and further magnified the effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine, switching the enhancement of responding from the control lever to the sucrose lever in an incentive-specific manner.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The pattern of data indicates that amphetamine either had little effect at all on hedonic impact or else shifted palatability slightly in the negative direction.

    “The pattern of data instead indicates that amphetamine either had little effect at all on hedonic impact or else shifted palatability slightly in the negative direction.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    The primary experimental rats were randomly divided into two groups to receive either contingent CS+ training or noncontingent CS random training with a visual cue in the operant chambers.

    “the primary experimental rats were randomly divided into two groups to receive either contingent [conditioned stimulus group (C Sϩ group)] (n ϭ 10) or noncontingent (C S random group) (n ϭ 10) training with a visual cue in the operant chambers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The testing order of drug doses and vehicle was counterbalanced between subjects using a 4 x 4 Latin square design.

    “The testing order of drug doses and vehicle was counterbalanced between subjects using a 4 ϫ 4 Latin square design.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given

    The videotapes were scored in slow motion by an observer blind to drug treatment condition.

    “The videotapes were scored in slow motion ( 1 ⁄10 of actual speed) by an observer blind to drug treatment condition.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    During test sessions, instrumental performance was assessed under extinction conditions with no primary, Pavlovian, or secondary reinforcement of lever pressing.

    “Instrumental performance was assessed under extinction conditions (i.e., no sucrose pellets were given during the test, so there was no primary reinforcement of pressing responses; similarly, the cue was no longer followed by sucrose, so there was no Pavlovian reinforcement; finally, pressing was not rewarded by the cue light, so there was no secondary reinforcement of responses).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The presence of the sucrose cue redirected the amphetamine enhancement of pressing away from the control lever and toward the sucrose lever and greatly multiplied its effect.

    “Thus, the presence of the sucrose cue redirected the amphetamine enhancement of pressing away from the control lever and toward the sucrose lever and greatly multiplied its effect.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Cannula placements were verified.

    “C annula placements were verified”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    The failure of amphetamine microinjection to enhance positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns is especially striking because morphine microinjection at a similar accumbens site does enhance positive hedonic reactions elicited by sucrose.

    “The failure of amphetamine microinjection to enhance positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns is especially striking because morphine microinjection at a similar accumbens site does enhance positive hedonic reactions elicited by sucrose (Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductnone given

    Although our microinjections were placed into the accumbens shell, the spread of the drug microinjection was unknown.

    “Although our microinjections were placed into the accumbens shell, the spread of the drug microinjection was unknown.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    According to the incentive salience hypothesis, the attribution of incentive salience to a sucrose cue would boost behavior in two ways: first, by making the cue light located on the sucrose lever more attractive, the cue would become a more potent elicitor of approach responses; second, amphetamine would have increased cue-triggered 'wanting' for sucrose itself by increasing the incentive salienc

    “According to the incentive salience hypothesis, the attribution of incentive salience to a sucrose cue would boost behavior in two ways.First, by making the cue light located on the sucrose lever more attractive, the cue would become a more potent elicitor of approach responses (in a manner similar to autoshaping) (Brown and Jenkins, 1968;Beagley and Holley, 1977;Rescorla and Cunningham, 1979;Dave”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Brown and Jenkins, 1968

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Robinson and Berridge, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Berridge and Robinson, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    In contrast, baseline performance (more related to expectations of hedonic value based on previous experience) was not affected.

    “In contrast, baseline performance (more related to expectations of hedonic value based on previous experience) was not affected.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Dickinson et al., 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    We never presented the cue as a contingent reinforcer for preceding responses but instead presented it freely every few minutes to elicit further subsequent responses.

    “We never presented the cue as a contingent reinforcer for preceding responses but instead presented it freely every few minutes to elicit further subsequent responses.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    In short, the accumbens shell plays a special role in food reward, but the core may also be important.

    “In short, the accumbens shell plays a special role in food reward, but the core may also be important.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Shell lesions abolish the ability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to potentiate responding for food conditioned reinforcers, whereas lesions of the accumbens core disrupt other learning-related aspects of conditioned reinforcement.

    “Shell lesions abolish the ability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to potentiate responding for food conditioned reinforcers, whereas lesions of the accumbens core disrupt other learning-related aspects of conditioned reinforcement (Parkinson et al., 1999).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Parkinson et al., 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Thus, our results cannot be explained by an amphetamine-induced enhancement of either primary or secondary reinforcement, although intra-accumbens amphetamine is known to enhance secondary reinforcement when response reinforcement contingencies exist.

    “Thus, our results cannot be explained by an amphetamine-induced enhancement of either primary or secondary reinforcement, although intra-accumbens amphetamine is known to enhance secondary reinforcement when response reinforcement contingencies exist (Taylor and Robbins, 1984;Robbins et al., 1989;Cador et al., 1991;Kelley and Delfs, 1991;Everitt and Robbins, 1992).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Taylor and Robbins, 1984

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Robbins et al., 1989

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cador et al., 1991

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Our rats in experiment 1 were working for real sucrose (albeit in extinction) and not for the cue, which occurred independent of whether the rats pressed or not.

    “Our rats in experiment 1 were working for real sucrose (albeit in extinction) and not for the cue, which occurred independent of whether the rats pressed or not.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The accumbens shell was targeted here because a special role for the shell has been implicated in dopamine activation by palatable food or food cues and in the elicitation of feeding behavior.

    “The accumbens shell was targeted here because a special role for the shell has been implicated in dopamine activation by palatable food or food cues (Park and Carr, 1998;Bassareo and Di Chiara, 1999) and in the elicitation of feeding behavior (Swanson et al., 1997;Basso and Kelley, 1999;Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Park and Carr, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bassareo and Di Chiara, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Swanson et al., 1997

      Not checked in the free run.

43 of 43
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Intra-accumbens amphetamine microinjection enhances dopamine neurotransmission in the nucleus accumbens shell.

    “Microinjections of the indirect dopamine agonist amphetamine were administered into the accumbens shell to enhance dopamine neurotransmission.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    To act as a conditioned reinforcer, a cue must be contingently presented after reinforced responses.

    “However, to act as a conditioned reinforcer, the cue must be contingently presented after reinforced responses.”
2 of 2

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?

  • 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 Wyvell and Berridge, 2000

  • 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 Wyvell and Berridge, 2000

  • These behavioral phenotypes are accompanied by baseline differences in dopamine transmission, with bHRs showing elevated sensitivity to dopamine agonists, increased proportion of striatal D2 receptors in a high-affinity state, greater frequency of spontaneous dopamine transients, and higher reward-related dopamine release prior to conditioning.

    “These behavioral phenotypes are accompanied by baseline differences in dopamine transmission, with bHRs showing elevated sensitivity to dopamine agonists, increased proportion of striatal D2receptors in a high-affinity state, greater frequency of spontaneous dopamine transients15, and higher reward-related dopamine release prior to conditioning, all of which could enhance their attribution of in”

    From A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning (2011) · cites this paper as [29]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

7 of the 89 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Everitt BJ Robbins TW (1992) Amygdala-ventral striatal interactions and reward-related processes. in The amygdala: neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction, ed Appleton JP (Wiley-Liss, New York), pp 401–429.
  2. Toates F (1986) Motivational systems. (Cambridge UP, Cambridge, UK).
  3. Wyvell CL, Berridge KC (2000) Intra-accumbens amphetamine enhances the conditioned incentive salience of sucrose reward. Soc Neurosci Abstr, in press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Wyvell, C. L., & Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
University of Michigan (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2000-11-01
Volume
20
Issue
21
Pages
8122-8130
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2147639837
Cited by
764
References
89
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 25 · 2017: 23 · 2016: 35 · 2015: 41 · 2014: 34 · 2013: 36 · 2012: 42
FWCI
8.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (9604408)
  • National Institutes of Health
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (F31 DA0599901)
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 › Neuroscience and Neuropharmacology Research
Keywords
amphetamine, nucleus accumbens shell, incentive salience, sucrose reward, instrumental responding, dopamine, taste reactivity
MeSH terms
Amphetamine, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Conditioning, Classical, Cues, Dopamine, Female, Microinjections, Motivation, Nucleus Accumbens, Quinine, Reinforcement, Psychology, Sucrose, Taste, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, Dopamine Agonists, 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