Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward “Wanting” without Enhanced “Liking” or Response Reinforcement
Open accessAbstract
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
Cites
Statistics
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
- Findingown data
All rats pressed more often on the sucrose lever than on the nonsucrose control lever during the extinction tests.
“All rats pressed more often on the sucrose lever than on the nonsucrose control lever during the extinction tests”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Only pressing on the sucrose lever was increased by presentation of the CS+.
“Only pressing on the sucrose lever was increased by presentation of the CSϩ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingcitation
In the current study, the amphetamine microinjection sites that increased conditioned motivation for sucrose reward were clustered around the same accumbens shell site in which morphine microinjection enhanced the hedonic impact of sucrose.
“In the current study, the amphetamine microinjection sites that increased the conditioned motivation for sucrose reward were clustered around the same accumbens shell site in which morphine microinjection enhanced the hedonic impact of sucrose”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- Findingown data
Pressing on the control nonsucrose lever was not increased by presentation of the CS+ cue.
“Pressing on the control nonsucrose lever was not increased by presentation of the CSϩ cue”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When the two levers were compared in terms of percentage increase in pressing, amphetamine in the absence of the CS+ cue produced a greater increase in pressing on the control lever than on the sucrose lever.
“when the two levers were compared in terms of the percentage increase in pressing, amphetamine in the absence of the CSϩ cue produced a greater increase in pressing on the control lever than on the sucrose lever”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The effect of the CS+ differed between the sucrose-associated and nonsucrose control levers.
“the effect of the CSϩ differed between the sucrose-associated and nonsucrose control levers”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no difference between the two levers in the magnitude of the enhancement produced by the CS random cue.
“there was no difference between the two levers in the magnitude of this enhancement”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Presentation of the CS+ sucrose cue significantly increased lever pressing compared with responding in the absence of the cue.
“Presentation of the CSϩ sucrose cue significantly increased lever pressing compared with responding in the absence of the cue”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The enhancement of aversive taste reactivity was only significant at the middle dose (10 μg).
“Moreover, this effect was only significant at the middle dose (10 g), which might suggest a general motor enhancement effect on this response as an alternative explanation to a systematic enhancement of aversive taste reactivity.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The magnitude of this general sensorimotor arousal increase was always small.
“However, the magnitude of this general sensorimotor arousal increase was always small.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The bittersweet sucrose-quinine solution evoked a mixture of hedonic and aversive reaction patterns.
“The bittersweet sucrose-quinine solution evoked a mixture of hedonic and aversive reaction patterns”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Amphetamine did not alter responding on the nonsucrose control lever in the presence of the CS+.
“amphetamine did not alter responding on the nonsucrose control lever in the presence of the CSϩ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
In percentage terms, presentation of the CS+ cue caused the amphetamine-induced increase in sucrose lever pressing to jump to nearly 400% from its 100% no-cue baseline.
“In percentage terms, presentation of the CSϩ cue caused the amphetamine-induced increase in sucrose lever pressing to jump to nearly 400% from its 100% no-cue baseline”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Presentation of the tone or clicker CS+ triggered significantly greater pressing on the sucrose lever compared with pressing in the absence of the CS+ or to pressing in the presence of the CS-.
“Presentation of the tone or clicker CSϩ triggered significantly greater pressing on the sucrose lever compared with pressing in the absence of the CSϩ or to pressing in the presence of the CSϪ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When reanalyzed in a separate one-way ANOVA, amphetamine doses reliably enhanced responding on the sucrose lever during the CS+ presentations.
“When reanalyzed in a separate one-way ANOVA, amphetamine doses again reliably enhanced responding on the sucrose lever during the CSϩ presentations”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was not a consistent increase in the overall pattern of aversive reactions.
“but there was not a consistent increase in the overall pattern of aversive reactions.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
The drug-induced enhancement of sucrose-specific responding observed during the sucrose cue was much larger (e.g., 400%).
“In contrast, the druginduced enhancement of sucrose-specific responding observed during the sucrose cue was much larger (e.g., 400%).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Intra-accumbens amphetamine did not increase responding on the control lever during presentation of the CS+ sucrose cue.
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine did not, however, increase responding on the control lever during presentation of the CSϩ sucrose cue”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Microinjection sites were primarily restricted to the caudomedial shell of the nucleus accumbens in rats from both experiments.
“Microinjection sites were found to be primarily restricted to the caudomedial shell of the nucleus accumbens in rats from both experiments.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Amphetamine did not selectively enhance hedonic reaction patterns as would be expected if amphetamine increased the hedonic impact of sucrose.
“In any case, it was clear that amphetamine did not selectively enhance hedonic reaction patterns as would be expected if amphetamine increased the hedonic impact of sucrose.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Microinjection of amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens failed to enhance the hedonic palatability or 'liking' of the sucrose-quinine mixture.
“These results indicate that microinjection of amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens failed to enhance the hedonic palatability of the sucrose-quinine mixture.”
- Also stated in: § Histology · plain
“In summary, there was no enhancement of hedonic palatability produced by amphetamine microinjection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Histology · plain
- Findingown data
Intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to enhance overall positive hedonic reactions compared with reactions elicited after vehicle microinjection.
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to enhance overall positive hedonic reactions compared with reactions elicited after vehicle microinjection.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Amphetamine had no effect on sucrose lever pressing in the presence of the CS-.
“amphetamine had no effect on sucrose lever pressing in the presence of the CSϪ”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
The pattern of affective reactions was distributed similarly over the various responses belonging to the positive hedonic category.
“the pattern of affective reactions was distributed similarly over the various responses belonging to the positive hedonic category”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
During presentation of a reward cue, the effect of amphetamine was dramatically different from the effect in the absence of the cue.
“During the presentation of a reward cue, however, the effect of amphetamine was dramatically different from the effect in the absence of the cue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
All three of these amphetamine doses enhanced sucrose cue-elicited instrumental responding for sucrose in experiment 1.
“Moreover, all three of these amphetamine doses enhanced sucrose cue-elicited instrumental responding for sucrose in experiment 1.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
During the CS+ sucrose cue presence, amphetamine microinjection produced a much greater percentage increase in pressing on the sucrose lever than on the control lever.
“However, during the CSϩ sucrose cue presence, that relation was reversed, and amphetamine microinjection produced a much greater percentage increase in pressing on the sucrose lever than on the control lever.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“The presence of the CSϩ sucrose cue selectively enhanced pressing on the sucrose lever, producing a cue-triggered redirection of potentiation of behavior to obtain sucrose reward.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
- Findingown data
Hedonic taste reactivity patterns elicited by sucrose-quinine were slightly shifted toward aversion, if changed at all, after amphetamine microinjection.
“Hedonic taste reactivity patterns elicited by sucrose-quinine were slightly shifted toward aversion, if changed at all, after amphetamine microinjection.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine marginally decreased hedonic reaction components elicited by the sucrose taste and slightly increased aversive reaction components elicited by the quinine taste.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
- Findingown data
Amphetamine microinjection into the accumbens shell potentiates the ability of a Pavlovian sucrose cue to trigger increases in instrumental responding for sucrose reward, even in the absence of either primary response reinforcement by actual sucrose reward or of secondary response reinforcement by the sucrose cue.
“These experiments demonstrate that amphetamine microinjection into the accumbens shell potentiates the ability of a Pavlovian sucrose cue to trigger increases in instrumental responding for sucrose reward, even in the absence of either primary response reinforcement by actual sucrose reward or of secondary response reinforcement by the sucrose cue.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine increased the ability of a sucrose cue to spur performance for sucrose reward, even under extinction conditions that precluded mediation by primary or secondary response reinforcement.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
- Findingown data
Intra-accumbens amphetamine further potentiated the incentive impact of the auditory CS+, selectively enhancing sucrose lever pressing in the presence of the CS+ to >200% of vehicle levels.
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine further potentiated the incentive impact of the auditory CSϩ, selectively enhancing sucrose lever pressing in the presence the CSϩ to Ͼ200% of vehicle levels”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
When each behavioral component was analyzed separately, only aversive head shakes were significantly enhanced by amphetamine microinjection (p < 0.01).
“When each behavioral component was analyzed separately, however, it was found that only aversive head shakes were significantly enhanced by amphetamine microinjection ( p Ͻ 0.01; Friedman ANOVA)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For the CS random group, presentation of the CS random control cue did not modify the effect of amphetamine on pressing of either the sucrose-associated lever or the nonsucrose control lever.
“For the CS random group, presentation of the CS random control cue did not modify the effect of amphetamine on pressing of either the sucrose-associated lever (one-way ANOVA with drug as factor; F (3,31) ϭ 1.084, p ϭ NS) or the nonsucrose control lever (one-way ANOVA with drug as factor; F (3,31) ϭ 0.270; p ϭ NS).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Amphetamine had no effect on sucrose-associated lever pressing in the absence of the CSs.
“amphetamine had no effect on sucrose-associated lever pressing in the absence of the CSs”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
There was no evidence that amphetamine reduced the aversive impact of the quinine element.
“Similarly, there was no evidence that amphetamine reduced the aversive impact of the quinine element.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
For the nonlocalized CS control group, amphetamine microinjection similarly magnified the ability of an auditory CS+ to elicit increased instrumental performance for sucrose.
“For the nonlocalized CS control group, amphetamine microinjection similarly magnified the ability of an auditory CSϩ to elicit increased instrumental performance for sucrose.”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Amphetamine microinjection significantly enhanced aversive taste reactivity (p < 0.01; Friedman ANOVA).
“were significantly enhanced by amphetamine microinjection ( p Ͻ 0.01; Friedman ANOVA) (Fig. 6).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim - Findingown data
Amphetamine specifically enhanced the ability of the CS+ to increase pressing on the sucrose lever in a dose-response manner.
“Amphetamine specifically enhanced the ability of the CSϩ to increase pressing on the sucrose lever in a dose-response manner”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Findingown data
Pressing on the sucrose lever was only slightly enhanced by amphetamine in the absence of the sucrose cue.
“However, pressing on the sucrose lever was only slightly enhanced by amphetamine in the absence of the sucrose cue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Dopamine modulates the effects of Pavlovian reward cues on motivated behavior.
“It is clear that dopamine modulates the effects of Pavlovian reward cues on motivated behavior.”
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 Kelley and Delfs, 1991
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Intra-accumbens amphetamine can potentiate cue-triggered incentive motivation for reward in the absence of primary or secondary reinforcement.
“Intra-accumbens amphet-amine can therefore potentiate cue-triggered incentive motivation for reward in the absence of primary or secondary reinforcement.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Study design and conductcitation
The CS random control stimulus served as a truly random control stimulus, with no predictive relationship between light and sucrose for the control group, rather than a negative predictor or inhibitory stimulus.
“The CS random , therefore, served as a truly random control stimulus (i.e., there was no predictive relationship between light and sucrose for the control group) rather than a negative predictor or inhibitory stimulus”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Rescorla, 1967
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
The CS+ sucrose cue selectively triggered increased lever pressing that was directed toward obtaining sucrose.
“Thus, the CSϩ sucrose cue selectively triggered increased lever pressing that was directed toward obtaining sucrose.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
A pure conditioned incentive paradigm more selectively measures the role of dopamine in motivational processes such as incentive salience, because it measures the ability of a cue to trigger motivation for rewards in the absence of both primary and secondary reinforcement.
“A pure conditioned incentive paradigm more selectively measures the role of dopamine in motivational processes such as incentive salience, because it measures the ability of a cue to trigger motivation for rewards in the absence of both primary and secondary reinforcement”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Rescorla and Solomon, 1967
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Toates, 1986
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Dickinson and Dawson, 1987
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisereasoning
The conditioned incentive paradigm provides a relatively specific way to test the hypothesis that intra-accumbens amphetamine increases incentive salience attribution without being confounded by response reinforcement processes.
“The conditioned incentive paradigm therefore provides a relatively specific way to test the hypothesis that intraaccumbens amphetamine increases incentive salience attribution without being confounded by response reinforcement processes.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Microinjection of intra-accumbens amphetamine potentiates instrumental responding that is reinforced by a food cue.
“microinjection of intra-accumbens amphetamine potentiates instrumental responding that is reinforced by a food cue”
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 Kelley and Delfs, 1991
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The inability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to enhance hedonic reactions to taste cannot be dismissed on the grounds that these drug doses were inappropriate.
“Thus, the inability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to enhance hedonic reactions to taste cannot be dismissed on the grounds that these drug doses were inappropriate; they have been shown repeatedly to produce rewarding effects, to enhance feeding, and to potentiate the incentive motivation for food reward in our pure conditioned incentive experiment.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Amphetamine microinjection in the nonlocalized CS control group specifically enhanced the ability of a nonlocalized reward cue to trigger increased seeking for sucrose reward.
“Thus, amphetamine microinjection in this nonlocalized CS control group specifically enhanced the ability of a nonlocalized reward cue to trigger increased seeking for sucrose reward.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Amphetamine microinjection induced a modest increase in sensorimotor responsiveness.
“This suggests that amphetamine microinjection induced a modest increase in sensorimotor responsiveness, which is consistent with the hypothesis that mesolimbic dopamine is involved in sensorimotor and integrative functions involved in generating complex responses (Salamone, 1986;Salamone et al., 1997).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Salamone, 1986
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Salamone et al., 1997
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
That pattern of affective reactions is the opposite of what would be expected if amphetamine enhanced the hedonic impact of sucrose reward.
“That pattern of affective reactions is the opposite of what would be expected if amphetamine enhanced the hedonic impact of sucrose reward.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationreasoning
This amphetamine-mediated enhancement of responding reflects a specific increase in the cue-triggered effort to obtain sucrose reward.
“Therefore, this amphetamine-mediated enhancement of responding reflects a specific increase in the cuetriggered effort to obtain sucrose reward.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationcitation
The failure of amphetamine to enhance taste hedonic impact occurred across a range of drug doses that have been reported previously to have positive effects on incentive motivation and reward.
“It is important to note that the failure of amphetamine to enhance taste hedonic impact in this experiment occurred across a range of drug doses that have been reported previously to have positive effects on incentive motivation and reward.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
These doses of amphetamine have reward- or motivation-enhancing effects relevant to food incentives.
“In other words, these doses of amphetamine have reward-or motivation-enhancing effects relevant to food incentives”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Sills and Vaccarino, 1996
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Carr and White, 1986
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Kelley and Delfs, 1991
Not checked in the free run.
- Premisecitation
The middle dose (10 μg) has been shown to produce a conditioned place preference.
“the middle dose (10 g) has been shown to produce a conditioned place preference (Carr and White, 1986)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Carr and White, 1986
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationown data
Our observations indicate those reward-relevant effects do not extend to increasing the hedonic impact of a taste.
“but our observations indicate those reward-relevant effects do not extend to increasing the hedonic impact of a taste.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The lowest dose of intra-accumbens amphetamine (2 μg) has been reported to enhance feeding.
“The lowest dose of intra-accumbens amphetamine (2 g) has been reported to enhance feeding (Sills and Vaccarino, 1996)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Sills and Vaccarino, 1996
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
The reversibility of the cue-triggered increase in responding produced by amphetamine indicates that it required actual perception of the presence of the sucrose cue.
“The reversibility of the cue-triggered increase in responding produced by amphetamine indicates that it required actual perception of the presence of the sucrose cue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
The highest dose (20 μg) has been reported to enhance responding in the conditioned reinforcement paradigm.
“the highest dose (20 g) has been reported to enhance responding in the conditioned reinforcement paradigm (Kelley and Delfs, 1991)”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Kelley and Delfs, 1991
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
Thus, the DA-dependent system seems to be responsible specifically for enhancing the conditioned incentive impact of reward cues.
“Thus, the DA-dependent system seems to be responsible specifically for enhancing the conditioned incentive impact of reward cues (Dickinson et al., 2000) (for discussion, see Berridge, 2000b).”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked- cites Dickinson et al., 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Berridge, 2000b
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Our results cannot be explained by an amphetamine-induced enhancement of response reinforcement because the conditioned incentive paradigm precluded all reinforcement contingencies during the test.
“Our results cannot be explained by an amphetamine-induced enhancement of response reinforcement because the conditioned incentive paradigm precluded all reinforcement contingencies during the test.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Preliminary observations from our laboratory indicate that rats sensitized by previous psychostimulant drug administration exhibit excessive cue-triggered reward-seeking behavior in this pure conditioned incentive paradigm.
“Indeed, preliminary observations from our laboratory indicate that rats sensitized by previous psychostimulant drug administration exhibit excessive cue-triggered reward-seeking behavior in this pure conditioned incentive paradigm (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Wyvell and Berridge, 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
The inability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to enhance taste hedonic impact is consistent with the results of previous taste reactivity studies that have manipulated dopamine systems.
“The inability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to enhance taste hedonic impact is consistent with the results of previous taste reactivity studies that have manipulated dopamine systems.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Treit and Berridge, 1990
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Pecin ˜a et al., 1997
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Berridge et al., 1989
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
Our conclusion that mesolimbic dopamine activation modulates the incentive salience of a Pavlovian sucrose cue is consistent with recent findings by Dickinson and colleagues who have demonstrated a converse suppression of conditioned incentive salience by dopamine antagonists.
“Our conclusion that mesolimbic dopamine activation modulates the incentive salience of a Pavlovian sucrose cue is consistent with recent findings by Dickinson and colleagues who have demonstrated a converse suppression of conditioned incentive salience by dopamine antagonists.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dickinson et al., 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationreasoning
Together, these results show that intra-accumbens amphetamine increased the pure conditioned incentive impact of the reward cue.
“Together, these results show that intra-accumbens amphetamine increased the pure conditioned incentive impact of the reward cue.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Together, these results support the hypothesis that accumbens amphetamine specifically enhances the attribution of incentive salience to Pavlovian reward cues.
“Together, these results support the hypothesis that accumbens amphetamine specifically enhances the attribution of incentive salience to Pavlovian reward cues.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Interpretationown data
Amphetamine magnified the ability of a CS+ cue to trigger instrumental behavior for its associated sucrose reward by acting in a purely conditioned incentive manner rather than through primary or secondary response reinforcement.
“That is, amphetamine magnified the ability of a CSϩ cue to trigger instrumental behavior for its associated sucrose reward by acting in a purely conditioned incentive manner rather than through primary or secondary response reinforcement.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim - Premisecitation
Dickinson et al. (2000) found that systemic pimozide or alpha-flupenthixol specifically suppressed the ability of a Pavlovian food CS+ to trigger instrumental performance for food under extinction conditions.
“Dickinson et al. (2000) found that systemic pimozide or ␣-flupenthixol specifically suppressed the ability of a Pavlovian food CSϩ to trigger instrumental performance for food under extinction conditions.”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked- cites Dickinson et al., 2000
Not checked in the free run.
- Interpretationcitation
These results are compatible with other evidence that sensitization increases the conditioned incentive value of reward-related stimuli.
“These results are compatible with other evidence that sensitization increases the conditioned incentive value of reward-related stimuli (Harmer and Phillips, 1998;De Vries et al., 1999;Fiorino and Phillips, 1999;Taylor and Horger, 1999).”
Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked- cites Harmer and Phillips, 1998
Not checked in the free run.
- cites De Vries et al., 1999
Not checked in the free run.
- cites Fiorino and Phillips, 1999
Not checked in the free run.
- May combine two claims. 27
- Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 22
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAmphetamine 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataPressing 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThere 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn 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- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataInstrumental 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- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
May combine two claims.
Findingown dataAmphetamine 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Findingown dataIn 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- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
Classified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe 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).
PremisecitationThe 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.
PremisecitationIntra-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.
PremisecitationDopaminergic 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).
PremisecitationReward 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).
PremisecitationConditioned 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.
PremisecitationSystemic 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.
PremisecitationMicroinjections 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 dataTotal 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
PremisecitationPositive 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.
PremisecitationOpioid 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 dataSix 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationPharmacological 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 dataThe 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
PremisecitationThe 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 givenThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductnone givenThe 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe 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 claimProbably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).
Study design and conductnone givenThe 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductreasoningDuring 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 claimMay combine two claims.
Interpretationown dataThe 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim.
Study design and conductown dataCannula placements were verified.
“C annula placements were verified”
Quote in the paperSubstantial claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationThe 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 givenAlthough 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 claimClassified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.
PremisecitationAccording 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.
PremisecitationIn 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 conductreasoningWe 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 claimMay combine two claims.
InterpretationcitationIn 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 claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationShell 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.
InterpretationreasoningThus, 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 conductreasoningOur 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 claimMay combine two claims.
PremisecitationThe 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.
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.”
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
The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates
Paxinos, G., & Watson, C. (1983) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-63235-9 · Cited by 28,585 · see citing works
The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction
Robinson, T. (1993) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p · Cited by 7,346 · cited 9× · see citing works
“inson (Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Berridge and Robinson, 1998).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAChE-stained horizontal sections of the rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates
Paxinos, G., WATSON, C. R. R., & Emson, P. C. (1980) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/0165-0270(80)90021-7 · Cited by 4,497 · see citing works
What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00019-8 · Cited by 4,127 · see citing works
Self-citationGlantz, S. A. (1981) · Cited by 2,636 · see citing works
Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking
Berridge, K. C. (1996) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(95)00033-b · Cited by 1,901 · cited 4× · see citing works
“There were also significant effects on lever pressing for the drug dose factor (F(3,270) 5 3.164; p , 0.05) and the Pavlovian cue presence (F(1,270) 5 30.651; p , 0.001), and there was a significant interaction between cue 3 group (F(1,270) 5 5.671; p , 0.05).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAUTO‐SHAPING OF THE PIGEON'S KEY‐PECK1
Brown, P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. (1968) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1 · Cited by 1,544 · cited 2× · see citing works
“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; Davey et al., 1984; Toates, 1986, 1994; Oscos et al., 1…”
BackgroundThe psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2000) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.19.x · Cited by 1,507 · see citing works
Self-citationTwo-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.
Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024475 · Cited by 1,487 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…processes such as incentive salience, because it measures the ability of a cue to trigger motivation for rewards in the absence of both primary and secondary reinforcement (Rescorla and Solomon, 1967; Toates, 1986; Dickinson and Dawson, 1987; Balleine, 1994; Dickinson and Balleine, 1994).”
BackgroundPavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.
Rescorla, R. A. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024109 · Cited by 1,369 · cited 1× · see citing works
“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.””
MethodThe taste reactivity test. I. Mimetic responses to gustatory stimuli in neurologically normal rats
Grill, H. J., & Norgren, R. (1978) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(78)90568-1 · Cited by 1,203 · cited 3× · see citing works
“A related experiment investigated whether doses of intra-accumbens amphetamine that increased “wanting” for sucrose would also increase “liking” for sucrose, using the affective taste reactivity technique to measure hedonic impact (Grill and Norgren, 1978; Berridge, 2000a).”
BackgroundMethodMotivational control of goal-directed action
Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. (1994) · Animal Learning & Behavior · doi:10.3758/bf03199951 · Cited by 995 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…processes such as incentive salience, because it measures the ability of a cue to trigger motivation for rewards in the absence of both primary and secondary reinforcement (Rescorla and Solomon, 1967; Toates, 1986; Dickinson and Dawson, 1987; Balleine, 1994; Dickinson and Balleine, 1994).”
BackgroundMethodBerridge, K. (2000) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(99)00072-x · Cited by 721 · cited 13× · see citing works
“…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 infusions of taste stimuli from human infants, apes, monkeys, or rats (Grill and Berridge, 1985; Berridge, 1996, 2000a) (see Fig.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationNeuroleptic-Induced "Anhedonia" in Rats: Pimozide Blocks Reward Quality of Food
Wise, R. A., Spindler, J., de Wit, H., & Gerberg, G. J. (1978) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.566469 · Cited by 636 · cited 2× · see citing works
“esis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards (Wise et al., 1978; Wise, 1985; Gardner and Lowinson, 1993; Volkow et al., 1999).”
BackgroundHernandez, L., & Hoebel, B. G. (1988) · Life Sciences · doi:10.1016/0024-3205(88)90036-7 · Cited by 627 · see citing works
Parkinson, J. A., Olmstead, M. C., Burns, L. H., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (1999) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.19-06-02401.1999 · Cited by 555 · see citing works
Salamone, J. D., Cousins, M. S., & Snyder, B. J. (1997) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(96)00017-6 · Cited by 514 · cited 4× · see citing works
“This suggests that amphetamine microinjection induced a modest increase in sensorimotor responsiveness, which is consistent with the hypothesis that mesolimbic dopamine is involved in sensorimotor and integrative functions involved in generating complex responses (Salamone, 1986; Salamone et al., 1997).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialLimbic-striatal interactions in reward-related processes
Robbins, T. W., Cador, M., Taylor, J. R., & Everitt, B. J. (1989) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(89)80025-9 · Cited by 458 · cited 4× · see citing works
“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;…”
BackgroundInfluentialCabanac, M. (1979) · The Quarterly Review of Biology · doi:10.1086/410981 · Cited by 441 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…of rats to tastes are enhanced by physiological states such as food deprivation or sodium deple- tion (Berridge et al., 1984; Berridge, 1991), similar to the way human subjective ratings of taste palatability are increased by those states (Cabanac, 1979; Beauchamp et al., 1990; Laeng et al., 1993).”
BackgroundTaylor, J. R., & Robbins, T. W. (1984) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00555222 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J., Logan, J., Gatley, S., Wong, C., Hitzemann, R., & Pappas, N. (1999) · Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics · doi:10.1016/s0022-3565(24)35115-8 · Cited by 434 · cited 2× · see citing works
“esis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards (Wise et al., 1978; Wise, 1985; Gardner and Lowinson, 1993; Volkow et al., 1999).”
BackgroundBassareo, V., & Chiara, G. D. (1999) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/s0306-4522(98)00583-1 · Cited by 433 · see citing works
Peciña, S., & Berridge, K. C. (2000) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(00)02102-8 · Cited by 405 · cited 15× · see citing works
“…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 infusions of taste stimuli from human infants, apes, monkeys, or rats (Grill and Berridge, 1985; Berridge, 1996, 2000a) (see Fig.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationBerridge, K. C., Venier, I. L., & Robinson, T. E. (1989) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.103.1.36 · Cited by 356 · cited 2× · see citing works
“a food reward as assessed by hedonic taste reactivity (Berridge et al., 1989; Berridge and Robinson, 1998).”
BackgroundSelf-citationA motivational learning hypothesis of the role of mesolimbic dopamine in compulsive drug use
Chiara, G. D. (1998) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/026988119801200108 · Cited by 346 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Reward learning hypotheses suggest that dopamine mediates either response reinforcement or associative predictions of reward (Di Chiara, 1998; McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998; Schultz et al., 1998), and there are still other conceptual alternatives, too (Salamone et al., 1997; Sokolowski and…”
BackgroundReward learning: reinforcement, incentives, and expectations
Berridge, K. C. (2000) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(00)80022-5 · Cited by 318 · cited 13× · see citing works
“…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 infusions of taste stimuli from human infants, apes, monkeys, or rats (Grill and Berridge, 1985; Berridge, 1996, 2000a) (see Fig.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationReward prediction in primate basal ganglia and frontal cortex
Schultz, W., Tremblay, L., & Hollerman, J. R. (1998) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0028-3908(98)00071-9 · Cited by 318 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Reward learning hypotheses suggest that dopamine mediates either response reinforcement or associative predictions of reward (Di Chiara, 1998; McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998; Schultz et al., 1998 ), and there are still other conceptual alternatives, too (Salamone et al., 1997; Sokolowski and Salamone, 1998; Everitt et…”
BackgroundDissociation of Pavlovian and instrumental incentive learning under dopamine antagonists.
Dickinson, A., Smith, J. W., & Mirenowicz, J. (2000) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.114.3.468 · Cited by 312 · cited 7× · see citing works
“According to this theory, food rewards activate two distinctive but interacting systems: a DA-dependent incentive salience system and a DA-independent hedonic system” (Dickinson et al., 2000).”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialBerridge, K. C., & Valenstein, E. S. (1991) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.105.1.3 · Cited by 302 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…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 (Berridge and Valenstein, 1991; Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Berridge and Robinson, 1998).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBerridge, K. C., & Valenstein, E. S. (1991) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.105.1.3 · Cited by 302 · see citing works
Self-citationBurns, L. H., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (1993) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0166-4328(93)90113-5 · Cited by 289 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and instrumental performance for food-related cues (Cador et al., 1991; Burns et al., 1993; Sills and Vaccarino, 1996; Swanson et al., 1997).”
BackgroundSodium depletion enhances salt palatability in rats
Berridge, K. C., Flynn, F. W., Schulkin, J., & Grill, H. J. (1984) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.98.4.652 · Cited by 257 · cited 2× · see citing works
“tion (Berridge et al., 1984; Berridge, 1991), similar to the way human subjective ratings of taste palatability are increased by those states (Cabanac, 1979; Beauchamp et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationModulation of taste affect by hunger, caloric satiety, and sensory-specific satiety in the rat
Berridge, K. C. (1991) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/0195-6663(91)90036-r · Cited by 253 · cited 2× · see citing works
“tion (Berridge et al., 1984; Berridge, 1991), similar to the way human subjective ratings of taste palatability are increased by those states (Cabanac, 1979; Beauchamp et al.”
BackgroundSelf-citationDissociation of Pavlovian and instrumental incentive learning under dopamine antagonists.
Dickinson, A., Smith, J. W., & Mirenowicz, J. (2000) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.114.3.468 · Cited by 249 · see citing works
Vries, T. J. D., Schoffelmeer, A. N. M., Binnekade, R., & Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J. (1999) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130050944 · Cited by 220 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These results are compatible with other evidence that sensitization increases the conditioned incentive value of reward-related stimuli (Harmer and Phillips, 1998; De Vries et al., 1999; Fiorino and Phillips, 1999; Taylor and Horger, 1999).”
ResultCarr, G. D., & White, N. M. (1986) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00174372 · Cited by 217 · see citing works
Dopamine and preparatory behavior: II. A neurochemical analysis.
Blackburn, J., Phillips, A. G., Jakubovič, A., & Fibiger, H. C. (1989) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.103.1.15 · Cited by 188 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…salience Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives (Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Blackburn et al., 1989; Phillips et al., 1993; Mark et al., 1994; Richardson and Gratton, 1996; Di Ciano et al., 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999),…”
BackgroundSwanson, C. J., Heath, S., Stratford, T. R., & Kelley, A. E. (1997) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(97)00043-9 · Cited by 176 · cited 4× · see citing works
“…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; Peciña and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialDopamine and conditioned reinforcement
Kelley, A. E., & Delfs, J. M. (1991) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf02244202 · Cited by 171 · see citing works
Differential involvement of amygdala subsystems in appetitive conditioning and drug addiction
Everitt, B. J., Cardinal, R. N., Hall, J., Parkinson, J. A., & Robbins, T. W. (2000) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780198505013.003.0010 · Cited by 170 · see citing works
The anhedonia hypothesis: mark III.
Wise, R. A. (1985) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x00020306 · Cited by 169 · cited 1× · see citing works
“As alternative explanations for the role of dopamine in reward, the hedonia hypothesis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards (Wise et al., 1978; Wise, 1985; Gardner and Lowinson, 1993; Volkow et al., 1999).”
BackgroundSokolowski, J. D., & Salamone, J. D. (1998) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(97)00544-3 · Cited by 166 · cited 2× · see citing works
“, 1998), and there are still other conceptual alternatives, too (Salamone et al., 1997; Sokolowski and Salamone, 1998; Everitt et al., 2000).”
BackgroundExperimental sodium depletion and salt taste in normal human volunteers
Beauchamp, G. K., Bertino, M., Burke, D., & Engelman, K. (1990) · American Journal of Clinical Nutrition · doi:10.1093/ajcn/51.5.881 · Cited by 163 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…of rats to tastes are enhanced by physiological states such as food deprivation or sodium deple- tion (Berridge et al., 1984; Berridge, 1991), similar to the way human subjective ratings of taste palatability are increased by those states (Cabanac, 1979; Beauchamp et al., 1990; Laeng et al., 1993).”
Richardson, N. R., & Gratton, A. P. (1996) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.16-24-08160.1996 · Cited by 160 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives (Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Blackburn et al., 1989; Phillips et al., 1993; Mark et al., 1994; Richardson and Gratton, 1996; Di Ciano et al., 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens microinjection of…”
BackgroundAhn, S., & Phillips, A. G. (1999) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.19-19-j0003.1999 · Cited by 160 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives (Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Blackburn et al., 1989; Phillips et al., 1993; Mark et al., 1994; Richardson and Gratton, 1996; Di Ciano et al., 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens microinjection of…”
BackgroundPeciña, S. (1997) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(97)00044-0 · Cited by 148 · cited 1× · see citing works
“Neither systemic dopamine antagonists (Treit and Berridge, 1990; Peciña et al., 1997) nor depletion of up to 99% of mesolimbic and nigrostriatal dopamine by 6-hydroxydopamine lesions suppress “liking” for a food reward as assessed by hedonic taste reactivity (Berridge et al., 1989; Berridge and…”
BackgroundDopamine and preparatory behavior: II. A neurochemical analysis.
Blackburn, J., Phillips, A. G., Jakubovič, A., et al. (1989) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.103.1.15 · Cited by 144 · see citing works
Locating Reward Cue at Response Manipulandum (CAM) Induces Symptoms of Drug Abuse
Tomie, A. (1996) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(95)00023-2 · Cited by 138 · see citing works
Taylor, J. R., & Horger, B. A. (1999) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130050859 · Cited by 137 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These results are compatible with other evidence that sensitization increases the conditioned incentive value of reward-related stimuli (Harmer and Phillips, 1998; De Vries et al., 1999; Fiorino and Phillips, 1999; Taylor and Horger, 1999).”
ResultBenzodiazepines, appetite, and taste palatability
Berridge, K. C., & Peciña, S. (1995) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(94)00026-w · Cited by 132 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…group, presentation of the CSrandom control cue did not modify the effect of amphetamine on pressing of either the sucrose-associated lever (one-way ANOVA with drug as factor; F(3,31) 5 1.084, p 5 NS) or the nonsucrose control lever (one-way ANOVA with drug as factor; F(3,31) 5 0.270; p 5 NS).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationMorphine enhances hedonic taste palatability in rats
Doyle, T. G., Berridge, K. C., & Gosnell, B. A. (1993) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/0091-3057(93)90572-b · Cited by 131 · cited 2× · see citing works
“For instance, systemic and intracranial injections of opioid agonists or of benzodiazepines have been shown to enhance hedonic palatability using the taste reactivity technique (Treit and Berridge, 1990; Doyle et al., 1993; Peciña and Berridge 1996, 2000).”
MethodSelf-citationBasso, A. M., & Kelley, A. E. (1999) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.113.2.324 · Cited by 129 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…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; Peciña and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundPalatability shift of a salt-associated incentive during sodium depletion.
Berridge, K. C., & Schulkin, J. A. (1989) · PubMed · Cited by 127 · see citing works
Self-citationSpatial contiguity facilitates Pavlovian second-order conditioning.
Rescorla, R. A., & Cunningham, C. L. (1979) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.5.2.152 · Cited by 123 · cited 1× · see citing works
“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; Davey et al., 1984; Toates, 1986, 1994; Oscos et al., 19…”
BackgroundPavlovian Processes in the Motivational Control of Instrumental Performance
Dickinson, A., & Dawson, G. (1987) · Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1080/14640748708402264 · Cited by 118 · cited 2× · see citing works
“…processes such as incentive salience, because it measures the ability of a cue to trigger motivation for rewards in the absence of both primary and secondary reinforcement (Rescorla and Solomon, 1967; Toates, 1986; Dickinson and Dawson, 1987; Balleine, 1994; Dickinson and Balleine, 1994).”
BackgroundMethodBasso, A. M., & Kelley, A. E. (1999) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.113.2.324 · Cited by 118 · see citing works
A comparison of benzodiazepine, serotonin, and dopamine agents in the taste-reactivity paradigm
Treit, D., & Berridge, K. C. (1990) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/0091-3057(90)90011-6 · Cited by 116 · cited 4× · see citing works
“systemic dopamine antagonists (Treit and Berridge, 1990; Peciña et al., 1997) nor depletion of up to 99% of mesolimbic and nigrostriatal dopamine by 6-hydroxydopamine lesions suppress “liking” for”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationPhillips, A. G., Atkinson, L. J., Blackburn, J. R., & Blaha, C. D. (1993) · Canadian Journal of Physiology and Pharmacology · doi:10.1139/y93-059 · Cited by 113 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives (Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Blackburn et al., 1989; Phillips et al., 1993; Mark et al., 1994; Richardson and Gratton, 1996; Di Ciano et al., 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens…”
BackgroundFiorino, D. F., & Phillips, A. G. (1999) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s002130050880 · Cited by 110 · cited 1× · see citing works
“These results are compatible with other evidence that sensitization increases the conditioned incentive value of reward-related stimuli (Harmer and Phillips, 1998; De Vries et al., 1999; Fiorino and Phillips, 1999; Taylor and Horger, 1999).”
ResultEnhanced appetitive conditioning following repeated pretreatment with d-amphetamine
Harmer, C. J., & Phillips, G. D. (1998) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/00008877-199807000-00001 · Cited by 107 · see citing works
An appetitively conditioned taste elicits a preferential increase in mesolimbic dopamine release
Mark, G. P., Smith, S. E., Rada, P. V., & Hoebel, B. G. (1994) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/0091-3057(94)90327-1 · Cited by 101 · see citing works
Ciano, P. D., Blaha, C. D., & Phillips, A. G. (1998) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00125.x · Cited by 98 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…and other incentives (Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Blackburn et al., 1989; Phillips et al., 1993; Mark et al., 1994; Richardson and Gratton, 1996; Di Ciano et al., 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and…”
BackgroundDifferent effects of haloperidol and extinction on instrumental behaviours
Salamone, J. D. (1986) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00310507 · Cited by 95 · see citing works
Park, T. H., & Carr, K. D. (1998) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(98)00719-7 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Pleasantness of a Sweet Taste during Hunger and Satiety: Effects of Gender and "Sweet Tooth"
Laeng, B., Berridge, K. C., & Butter, C. M. (1993) · Appetite · doi:10.1006/appe.1993.1043 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Self-citationHypothalamic Stimulation Facilitates Contralateral Visual Control of a Learned Response
Beagley, W. K., & Holley, T. L. (1977) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.847475 · Cited by 85 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…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; Davey et al., 1984; Toates, 1986, 1994; Oscos et al., 1988; Berridge, 1996; Tomie, 1996).”
BackgroundAsymmetrical interactions between thirst and hunger in Pavlovian-instrumental transfer.
Balleine, B. W. (1994) · PubMed · Cited by 75 · see citing works
Oscos, A., Martinez, J. L., & McGaugh, J. L. (1988) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf00212781 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
̃a, S. P., & Berridge, K. C. (1996) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/0006-8993(96)00325-3 · Cited by 57 · cited 1× · see citing works
“For instance, systemic and intracranial injections of opioid agonists or of benzodiazepines have been shown to enhance hedonic palatability using the taste reactivity technique (Treit and Berridge, 1990; Doyle et al., 1993; Peciña and Berridge 1996, 2000).”
MethodSelf-citationMesoaccumbens dopamine-opiate interactions in the control over behaviour by a conditioned reinforcer
Phillips, G. D., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (1994) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/bf02244858 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Ciano, P. D., Blaha, C. D., & Phillips, A. G. (1998) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.1998.00124.x · Cited by 54 · cited 1× · see citing works
“…and other incentives (Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Blackburn et al., 1989; Phillips et al., 1993; Mark et al., 1994; Richardson and Gratton, 1996; Di Ciano et al., 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and…”
BackgroundDrug craving and positive/negative hedonic brain substrates activated by addicting drugs
Gardner, E. L., & Lowinson, J. H. (1993) · Seminars in Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/s1044-5765(05)80044-2 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
Control of fluid palatability by exteroceptive Pavlovian signals.
Delamater, A. R., LoLordo, V. M., & Berridge, K. C. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · doi:10.1037//0097-7403.12.2.143 · Cited by 52 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Conditioned food preferences based on associative learning also increase positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns, because conditioned stimuli that have been paired with palatable tastes can acquire the ability to enhance hedonic taste reactions (Delamater et al., 1986; Berridge and Schulkin, 1989; Breslin et al., 1…”
BackgroundSelf-citationConditioned reversal of reactions to normally avoided tastes
Breslin, P. A. S., Davidson, T. L., & Grill, H. J. (1990) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/0031-9384(90)90122-k · Cited by 50 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Conditioned food preferences based on associative learning also increase positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns, because conditioned stimuli that have been paired with palatable tastes can acquire the ability to enhance hedonic taste reactions (Delamater et al., 1986; Berridge and Schulkin, 1989; Breslin et al., 1…”
BackgroundMcFarland, K., & Ettenberg, A. (1998) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.112.3.630 · Cited by 48 · see citing works
McFarland, K., & Ettenberg, A. (1998) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.112.3.630 · Cited by 45 · see citing works
Comparing motivational systems—an incentive motivation perspective
Toates, F. M. (1994) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198547877.003.0013 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Control of fluid palatability by exteroceptive Pavlovian signals.
Delamater, A. R., LoLordo, V. M., & Berridge, K. C. (1986) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Behavior Processes · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.12.2.143 · Cited by 41 · see citing works
Self-citationLIMBIC-STRIATAL INTERACTIONS IN REWARD RELATED PROCESSES: MODULATION BY THE DOPAMINERGIC SYSTEM.
Cador, M. (1992) · Clinical Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1097/00002826-199201001-00285 · Cited by 39 · cited 4× · see citing works
“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;…”
BackgroundInfluentialSills, T. L., & Vaccarino, F. J. (1996) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/0091-3057(96)00024-x · Cited by 35 · cited 4× · see citing works
“, 1998a,b; Ahn and Phillips, 1999), and intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and instrumental performance for food-related cues (Cador et al., 1991; Burns et al., 1993; Sills and Vaccarino, 1996; Swanson et al., 1997).”
BackgroundInfluentialPeciña, S. (1996) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0006-8993(96)00325-3 · Cited by 35 · see citing works
The effect of early feeding experience on signal-directed response topography in the rat
Davey, G. C. L., Cleland, G. G., Oakley, D. A., et al. (1984) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/0031-9384(84)90062-3 · Cited by 10 · cited 2× · see citing works
“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; Davey et al., 1984; Toates, 1986, 1994; Oscos et al., 19…”
Background
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
- 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.
- Toates F (1986) Motivational systems. (Cambridge UP, Cambridge, UK).
- 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
Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion
Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1579 · Cited by 3,785 · see citing works
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379 · see citing works
Bardo, M. T., & Hammer, R. P. (1991) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/0306-4522(91)90226-e · Cited by 3,229 · see citing works
The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience
Berridge, K. C. (2007) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0578-x · Cited by 2,347 · see citing works
“Dopamine activation or suppression specifically modulates the strength of this cue-triggered burst of 'wanting' motivation, which decays away soon after the reward cue is removed, only to reappear again when the cue is reencountered later (Dickinson et al. 2000; Wyvell and Berridge 2000, 2001).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationEmotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00007-6 · Cited by 2,129 · see citing works
Dissecting components of reward: ‘liking’, ‘wanting’, and learning
Berridge, K. C., Robinson, T. E., & Aldridge, J. W. (2009) · Current Opinion in Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2008.12.014 · Cited by 1,942 · see citing works
“An encounter with a CS for a reward also triggers ‘wanting’ for its own associated UCS, presumably via transfer of incentive salience to associatively linked representations of the absent reward [34,47,48].”
BackgroundSelf-citationBalleine, B. W., & O'Doherty, J. P. (2010) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2009.131 · Cited by 1,775 · see citing works
“Thus, for example, dopamine activity appears to be critical for general transfer, which is abolished by DA antagonists and local inactivation of the VTA (Dickinson et al, 2000; Murschall and Hauber, 2006), whereas amphetamine-induced sensitization can enhance it (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundBerridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (2003) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/s0166-2236(03)00233-9 · Cited by 1,869 · see citing works
Self-citationBerridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018 · Cited by 1,730 · see citing works
“, higher runway performance of hyperdopaminergic mutant mice; higher peaks of cue-triggered effort to obtain sucrose reward, increases in reward consumption, and higher peaks of neural firing in NAc-VP circuits that encode cuetriggered ‘‘wanting’’) (Peciña and Berridge, 2013; Peciña et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2011; W…”
BackgroundSelf-citationRobinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2003) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145237 · Cited by 1,509 · see citing works
Self-citationIkemoto, S. (2007) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.05.004 · Cited by 1,477 · see citing works
The Neuroscience of Natural Rewards: Relevance to Addictive Drugs
Kelley, A. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2002) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-09-03306.2002 · Cited by 1,465 · see citing works
“Originally surprising were findings that mesocorticolimbic DA manipulations do not change “liking” for the taste of sucrose (Peciña et al., 1997; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), despite their role in incentive “wanting” for these and other rewards.”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe mysterious motivational functions of mesolimbic dopamine
Salamone, J. D., & Correa, M. (2012) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2012.10.021 · Cited by 1,418 · see citing works
Motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience
Berridge, K. C. (2004) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.02.004 · Cited by 1,302 · see citing works
“When incentive salience is attributed to a reward stimulus representation, it makes that stimulus attractive, attention grabbing, and a target for many Bindra–Toatesstyle goal-directed strategies [13,126,194].”
BackgroundSelf-citationPutting a spin on the dorsal-ventral divide of the striatum
Voorn, P., Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J., Groenewegen, H. J., Robbins, T. W., & Pennartz, C. M. A. (2004) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2004.06.006 · Cited by 1,188 · see citing works
Baxter, M. G., & Murray, E. A. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn875 · Cited by 1,200 · see citing works
“There are many aspects of reward, including: hedonic (liking) and incentive (wanting) valu”
Background“Liking” and “wanting” food rewards: Brain substrates and roles in eating disorders
Berridge, K. C. (2009) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.02.044 · Cited by 1,147 · see citing works
“Simultaneous presence of cues and hunger states (or drug states) can be needed to reveal amplification of incentive salience in neural and behavioral experiments [20,134], and may be important to reveal dopamine increases and related limbic activations [35,135,136].”
BackgroundSelf-citationBeautiful Faces Have Variable Reward Value
Aharon, I., Etcoff, N., Ariely, D., Chabris, C. F., O'Connor, E., & Breiter, H. C. (2001) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(01)00491-3 · Cited by 1,087 · see citing works
Neural responses during anticipation of a primary taste reward
O'Doherty, J. P., Deichmann, R., Critchley, H. D., & Dolan, R. J. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00603-7 · Cited by 1,076 · see citing works
A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning
Flagel, S. B., Clark, J. J., Robinson, T. E., Mayo, L., Czuj, A., Willuhn, I., Akers, C. A., Clinton, S. M., Phillips, P. E. M., & Akil, H. (2011) · Nature · doi:10.1038/nature09588 · Cited by 1,026 · see citing works
Nucleus accumbens shell and core dopamine: differential role in behavior and addiction
Di Chiara, G. (2002) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(02)00286-3 · Cited by 996 · see citing works
The cognitive functions of the caudate nucleus
Grahn, J. A., Parkinson, J. A., & Owen, A. M. (2008) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2008.09.004 · Cited by 942 · see citing works
“…Parkinson et al., 1999; Parkinson et al., 2000b) and its role in instrumental Page 12 of 47 Ac ce pt ed M an us cr ip t 12 behaviour may be best described as providing a stimulus-induced motivational influence on the performance (Balleine, 2005; Parkinson et al., 2000a; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundDopamine and drug addiction: the nucleus accumbens shell connection
Di Chiara, G., Bassareo, V., Fenu, S., De Luca, M. A., Spina, L., Cadoni, C., Acquas, E., Carboni, E., Valentini, V., & Lecca, D. (2004) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2004.06.032 · Cited by 935 · see citing works
Berke, J. D. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0152-y · Cited by 904 · see citing works
Cools, R. (2006) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.024 · Cited by 903 · see citing works
“…suggested to mediate Pavlovian (stimulus-outcome; S-O) associative processes and to direct both approach and instrumental (response-outcome; R-O) behaviour (Brown and Braver, 2005; Cador et al., 1991; Cardinal et al., 2002; Robbins et al., 1989; Taylor and Robbins, 1984; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Orbitofrontal Cortex and Its Contribution to Decision-Making
Wallis, J. D. (2007) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094334 · Cited by 895 · see citing works
“To date, research dissociating these two systems has focused on subcortical and neurotransmitter systems rather than on cortical areas (Pecina & Berridge 2005, Wyvell & Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundThe tempted brain eats: Pleasure and desire circuits in obesity and eating disorders
Berridge, K. C., Ho, C.-Y., Richard, J. M., & DiFeliceantonio, A. G. (2010) · Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.brainres.2010.04.003 · Cited by 873 · see citing works
“Similar elevations of 'wanting' without 'liking' have also been produced in ordinary rats by amphetamine-induced elevation in dopamine release, and by long term drug-sensitization of mesolimbic systems (Peciña et al., 2003; Tindell et al., 2005; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Self-citationReward, Motivation, and Reinforcement Learning
Dayan, P., & Balleine, B. W. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00963-7 · Cited by 855 · see citing works
The neuropsychological basis of addictive behaviour
Everitt, B. J., Dickinson, A., & Robbins, T. W. (2001) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(01)00088-1 · Cited by 808 · see citing works
Addiction and Cue-Triggered Decision Processes
Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828043052222 · Cited by 733 · see citing works
Dopamine operates as a subsecond modulator of food seeking
Roitman, M. F., Stuber, G. D., Phillips, P. E. M., Wightman, R. M., & Carelli, R. M. (2004) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.3823-03.2004 · Cited by 718 · see citing works
“These cues promote motor behavior to obtain food reward (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundPsychomotor stimulant addiction: a neural systems perspective
Everitt, B. J., & Wolf, M. E. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-09-03312.2002 · Cited by 700 · see citing works
“…of instrumental behavior by pavlovian stimuli is amplified by increased DA in the NAc shell in a way that is itself subject to sensitization (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001), perhaps representing the sensitized conditioned incentive salience that underlies drug “wanting,” the process at…”
BackgroundFrom prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation.
Berridge, K. C. (2012) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.07990.x · Cited by 700 · see citing works
“…in re-encounter if dopamine levels in nucleus accumbens are elevated above normal at that moment by a drug such as amphetamine or by neural sensitization induced by previous exposures to amphetamine or related drugs (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000, 2001; Tindell et al., 2005; Smith et al., 2011).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationBerridge, K. C. (2003) · Brain and Cognition · doi:10.1016/s0278-2626(03)00014-9 · Cited by 694 · see citing works
“This accumbens ‘liking’ subsystem is embedded in larger mesolimbic neural systems related to ‘wanting’ for food and other types of reward (Berridge & Robinson, 1998; Everitt et al., 1999; Kelley, 1999; Panksepp, 1998; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
InfluentialSelf-citationPeciña, S., & Berridge, K. C. (2005) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2329-05.2005 · Cited by 671 · see citing works
“Observation of increased eating without enhanced hedonic impact appears somewhat similar to dissociations of food “wanting” from “liking” produced by other manipulations of mesolimbic function (Berridge and Valenstein, 1991; Reynolds and Berridge, 2002; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Peciña et al., 2003).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe Brain, Appetite, and Obesity
Berthoud, H., & Morrison, C. D. (2007) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093551 · Cited by 661 · see citing works
REVIEW: Behavioural assessment of drug reinforcement and addictive features in rodents: an overview
Sanchis‐Segura, C., & Spanagel, R. (2006) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2006.00012.x · Cited by 629 · see citing works
Ventral Tegmental Area Neurons in Learned Appetitive Behavior and Positive Reinforcement
Fields, H. L., Hjelmstad, G. O., Margolis, E. B., & Nicola, S. M. (2007) · Annual Review of Neuroscience · doi:10.1146/annurev.neuro.30.051606.094341 · Cited by 611 · see citing works
“Both systemic dopamine antagonist injection (Dickinson et al. 2000) and inactivation of the VTA (Murschall & Hauber 2006) reduced lever pressing in response to the CS. Conversely, lever pressing to the CS was potentiated by NAc amphetamine injection (Wyvell & Berridge 2000).”
MethodAlcaro, A., Huber, R., & Panksepp, J. (2007) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.07.014 · Cited by 614 · see citing works
“…Swanson et al., 1997; Schildein et al., 1998), conditioned approach responses (Taylor and Robbins, 1986; Kelley and Delfs, 1991; Burns et al., 1993; Wolterink et al., 1993; Parkinson et al., 1999; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) and anticipatory sexual behaviors (Everitt et al., 1989; Everitt, 1990).”
BackgroundFlagel, S. B., Akil, H., & Robinson, T. E. (2009) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2008.06.027 · Cited by 561 · see citing works
“…energize ongoing instrumental actions, as indicated by the Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer effect (e.g., Dickinson et al., 2000; Lovibond, 1983; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000); and (3) they can reinforce the learning of new instrumental actions; that is, they can act as conditional reinforcers…”
BackgroundHyperdopaminergic mutant mice have higher "wanting" but not "liking" for sweet rewards
Peciña, S., Cagniard, B., Berridge, K. C., Aldridge, J. W., & Zhuang, X. (2003) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.23-28-09395.2003 · Cited by 551 · see citing works
“Our results are reminiscent of similar reports of increased wanting accompanied by slightly decreased “liking” produced by amphetamine microinjection in the nucleus accumbens and by electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle (Berridge and Valenstein, 1991; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
InfluentialSelf-citationVentral pallidum roles in reward and motivation
Smith, K. S., Tindell, A. J., Aldridge, J. W., & Berridge, K. C. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.09.038 · Cited by 548 · see citing works
Self-citationReward system and addiction: what dopamine does and doesn’t do
DiChiara, G., & Bassareo, V. (2006) · Current Opinion in Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2006.11.003 · Cited by 534 · see citing works
Belin, D., Jonkman, S., Dickinson, A., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2008.09.027 · Cited by 520 · see citing works
Roles for nigrostriatal—not just mesocorticolimbic—dopamine in reward and addiction
Wise, R. A. (2009) · Trends in Neurosciences · doi:10.1016/j.tins.2009.06.004 · Cited by 500 · see citing works
Differential control over cocaine-seeking behavior by nucleus accumbens core and shell
Ito, R., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2004) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1217 · Cited by 501 · see citing works
“Moreover, intra-NAc shell infusions of amphetamine enhanced the motivational effects of Pavlovian conditioned stimuli on instrumental behavior (Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer, a form of Pavlovian arousa”
BackgroundA unified framework for addiction: Vulnerabilities in the decision process
Redish, A. D., Jensen, S., & Johnson, A. (2008) · Behavioral and Brain Sciences · doi:10.1017/s0140525x0800472x · Cited by 501 · see citing works
Context-induced relapse to drug seeking: a review
Crombag, H. S., Bossert, J. M., Koya, E., & Shaham, Y. (2008) · Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B Biological Sciences · doi:10.1098/rstb.2008.0090 · Cited by 498 · see citing works
Beyond the reward hypothesis: alternative functions of nucleus accumbens dopamine
Salamone, J. D., Correa, M., Mingote, S., & Weber, S. (2004) · Current Opinion in Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.coph.2004.09.004 · Cited by 454 · see citing works
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine injections were shown to facilitate Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer [47]; nucleus accumbens lesions impaired this effect [46].”
BackgroundVolkow, N. D., Wang, G., Fowler, J. S., Logan, J., Jayne, M., Franceschi, D., Wong, C., Gatley, S. J., Gifford, A. N., Ding, Y., et al. (2002) · Synapse · doi:10.1002/syn.10075 · Cited by 452 · see citing works
Hedonic Hot Spots in the Brain
Peciña, S., Smith, K. S., & Berridge, K. C. (2006) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858406293154 · Cited by 441 · see citing works
Self-citationDopamine modulates the reward experiences elicited by music
Ferreri, L., Herrero, E. M., Zatorre, R. J., Ripollés, P., Gómez-Andrés, A., Alicart, H., Olivé, G., Marco‐Pallarés, J., Antonijoan, R. M., Valle, M., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1073/pnas.1811878116 · Cited by 440 · see citing works
Ito, R., Dalley, J. W., Howes, S. R., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2000) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.20-19-07489.2000 · Cited by 441 · see citing works
“…al., 1999), and by the DA receptor antagonist pimozide (Dickinson et al., 2000), whereas intra-accumbens infusions of D-amphetamine potentiate the response-incremental effects of a pavlovian CS1 (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), much as they potentiate conditioned reinforcers (Taylor and Robbins, 1984).”
BackgroundWyvell, C. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-19-07831.2001 · Cited by 436 · see citing works
“Using this paradigm, Wyvell and Berridge (2000) showed that mesolimbic activation caused by an amphetamine microinjection into the nucleus accumbens selectively increased cue-triggered wanting for sucrose reward, without enhancing either response reinforcement or sucrose “liking.””
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialSelf-citationDisentangling the Roles of Approach, Activation and Valence in Instrumental and Pavlovian Responding
Huys, Q. J. M., Cools, R., Gölzer, M., Friedel, E., Heinz, A., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2011) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002028 · Cited by 415 · see citing works
“Third, given dopamine’s established positive correlation with approach and PIT [87,88], we expect genetic polymorphisms that boost DA levels, such as the SLC6A3 polymorphism of the dopamine transporter [89], to increase the impact of appetitive Pavlovian stimuli on approach.”
BackgroundYin, H. H., Ostlund, S. B., & Balleine, B. W. (2008) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06422.x · Cited by 416 · see citing works
“As an initial step in this direction, we hope that the framework discussed here will serve as a useful starting point for future investigation.”
BackgroundNieh, E. H., Vander Weele, C. M., Matthews, G. A., Presbrey, K. N., Wichmann, R., Leppla, C. A., Izadmehr, E. M., & Tye, K. M. (2016) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2016.04.035 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Wise, R. A., & Robble, M. A. (2020) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103337 · Cited by 418 · see citing works
Reynolds, S. M., & Berridge, K. C. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-16-07308.2002 · Cited by 403 · see citing works
“…have positively valenced motivational effects on behavior, including affective reactions to taste for opioids, even when administered at shell sites that caused negative or mixed effects here (Bakshi and Kelley, 1993; Peciña and Berridge, 2000; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Zhang and Kelley, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationThe Ventral Pallidum and Hedonic Reward: Neurochemical Maps of Sucrose “Liking” and Food Intake
Smith, K. S., & Berridge, K. C. (2005) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1902-05.2005 · Cited by 391 · see citing works
“This distinction might be related to the “wanting” without “liking” evoked by dopamine and GABA manipulations in nucleus accumbens, which appear to be mediated by motivational incentive salience mechanisms that are separable from hedonic impact mechanisms (Berridge and Valenstein, 1991; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Reyn…”
BackgroundSelf-citationNeuroaesthetics: A Coming of Age Story
Chatterjee, A. K. (2010) · Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience · doi:10.1162/jocn.2010.21457 · Cited by 393 · see citing works
“Berridge and Kringelbach ( 2008 ) and Wyvell and Berridge ( 2000 ) draw a distinction between “liking” and “wanting”.”
BackgroundThe Role of Learning in the Operation of Motivational Systems
Dickinson, A., & Balleine, B. W. (2002) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471214426.pas0312 · Cited by 387 · see citing works
Food reinforcement and eating: A multilevel analysis.
Epstein, L. H., Leddy, J. J., Temple, J. L., & Faith, M. S. (2007) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/0033-2909.133.5.884 · Cited by 384 · see citing works
“Conditioned, or cue-triggered, wanting is measured by using conditioned incentive paradigms (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
MethodDopamine neurons create Pavlovian conditioned stimuli with circuit-defined motivational properties
Saunders, B. T., Richard, J. M., Margolis, E. B., & Janak, P. H. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0191-4 · Cited by 365 · see citing works
Limbic-Striatal Memory Systems and Drug Addiction
Robbins, T. W. (2002) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1006/nlme.2002.4103 · Cited by 379 · see citing works
Liking vs. wanting food: Importance for human appetite control and weight regulation
Finlayson, G., King, N. A., & Blundell, J. E. (2007) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2007.03.004 · Cited by 376 · see citing works
“In this way, the MO model could provide a methodological platform from which ‘irrational wanting’ (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) might be simulated in humans.”
BackgroundOxytocin, motivation and the role of dopamine
Love, T. M. (2014) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2013.06.011 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
“Furthermore, large reductions or exaggerations in dopamine levels induced within the mesocorticolimbic system do not seem to alter hedonic reactions to natural rewards (Berridge et al. , 1989, Kaczmarek and Kiefer, 2000, Pecina et al. , 1997, Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Volkow, N. D., Wang, G.-J., Fowler, J. S., & Ding, Y.-S. (2005) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2004.11.006 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
The origins of altruism in offspring care.
Preston, S. D. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0031755 · Cited by 368 · see citing works
Model-based and model-free Pavlovian reward learning: Revaluation, revision, and revelation
Dayan, P., & Berridge, K. C. (2014) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-014-0277-8 · Cited by 357 · see citing works
“…or by drug-induced neural sensitization interposed between CS–UCS training and CS reencounter (DiFeliceantonio & Berridge, 2012; Pecina & Berridge, 2013; Smith, Berridge, & Aldridge, 2011; Tindell, Berridge, Zhang, Peciña, & Aldridge, 2005; Vezina & Leyton, 2009; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundSelf-citationThe nucleus accumbens as part of a basal ganglia action selection circuit
Nicola, S. M. (2006) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0510-4 · Cited by 360 · see citing works
“Although specifically reducing NAc dopamine function has not yet been shown to reduce the baseline PIT effect, administration of a systemic dopamine antagonist reduces PIT (Dickinson et al. 2000), as does inactivation of the ventral tegmental area (VTA), the midbrain structure containing dopamine neurons that project…”
BackgroundMethodInfluential“Liking” and “wanting” in eating and food reward: Brain mechanisms and clinical implications
Morales, I., & Berridge, K. C. (2020) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113152 · Cited by 346 · see citing works
Self-citationHall, J., Parkinson, J. A., Connor, T. M., Dickinson, A., & Everitt, B. J. (2001) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.0953-816x.2001.01577.x · Cited by 355 · see citing works
“Furthermore, amphetamine microinjections targeted at the NAcc shell have been shown to enhance PIT (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000), just as the shell has been shown to mediate the dopaminergic enhancement of conditioned reinforcement (Everitt & Robbins, 1992).”
BackgroundZhang, W.-N., Chang, S.-H., Guo, L.-Y., Zhang, K.-L., & Wang, J. (2013) · Journal of Affective Disorders · doi:10.1016/j.jad.2013.06.039 · Cited by 355 · see citing works
Di Ciano, P., Cardinal, R. N., Cowell, R. A., Little, S. J., & Everitt, B. J. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-23-09471.2001 · Cited by 354 · see citing works
“Indeed, infusion of DA receptor agonists into the NAcc increased the ability of a Pavlovian stimulus to enhance instrumental responding without influence on the hedonic value of the reward (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), whereas infusion of DA receptor agonists into the NAcc increased responding for a conditioned stimulu…”
BackgroundSalamone, J. D., Yohn, S. E., López-Cruz, L., San Miguel, N., & Correa, M. (2016) · Brain · doi:10.1093/brain/aww050 · Cited by 350 · see citing works
Castro, D. C., Cole, S. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2015) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2015.00090 · Cited by 333 · see citing works
“Lastly, and in contrast to the hedonic effects of mu opioid receptor stimulation, microinjections of the GABA antagonist bicuculline stimulated food intake throughout the entire VP, but never altered taste reactivity orofacial patterns at any VP site (Smith and Berridge, 2005).”
BackgroundSelf-citationCentral and Peripheral Regulation of Food Intake and Physical Activity: Pathways and Genes
Lenard, N. R., & Berthoud, H. (2008) · Obesity · doi:10.1038/oby.2008.511 · Cited by 338 · see citing works
Pavlovian to instrumental transfer: a neurobehavioural perspective.
Holmes, N. M., Marchand, A., & Coutureau, E. (2010) · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.03.007 · Cited by 327 · see citing works
Neural bases of food-seeking: affect, arousal and reward in corticostriatolimbic circuits
BALLEINE, B. (2005) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.08.061 · Cited by 326 · see citing works
“These latter reactions have been proposed to reflect the hedonic impact of both foods and the CS’s that predict food delivery and have been reported to be unaffected by lesions of the striatal DA input [23], the administration of pimozide [100] or the facilitation of DA transmission by either microinjection of ampheta…”
BackgroundThe role of central dopamine D3 receptors in drug addiction: a review of pharmacological evidence
Heidbreder, C. A., Gardner, E. L., Xi, Z., Thanos, P. K., Mugnaini, M., Hagan, J. J., & Ashby, C. R. (2005) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2004.12.033 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
“For example, the presentation of a drug-associated CS to animals can induce large conditioned increases in NAc DA [82,141], suggesting that DA in the NAc is involved in cue-controlled drug seeking [308] through interactions with limbic afferents to the NAc [81,83].”
Appetitive Pavlovian-instrumental Transfer: A review.
Cartoni, E., Balleine, B., & Baldassarre, G. (2016) · Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.020 · Cited by 284 · see citing works
Schroeder, T. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195172379.001.0001 · Cited by 321 · see citing works
Reward learning: reinforcement, incentives, and expectations
Berridge, K. C. (2000) · Psychology of Learning and Motivation · doi:10.1016/s0079-7421(00)80022-5 · Cited by 318 · see citing works
“But the enhanced "wanting" for food is not accompanied by increased "liking," as evidenced by the microinjection's failure to increase positive hedonic patterns of behavior elicited from the rats by a sweet taste (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000 ).”
BackgroundSelf-citationBaldo, B. A., & Kelley, A. E. (2007) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-007-0741-z · Cited by 312 · see citing works
“hedonic taste reaction patterns at doses that augmented lever pressing induced by presentation of a Pavlovian conditioned stimulus for food delivery (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundA mind you can count on: validating breath counting as a behavioral measure of mindfulness
Levinson, D. B., Stoll, E. L., Kindy, S. D., Merry, H. L., & Davidson, R. J. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2014.01202 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
“…measure of attention capture (Anderson et al., 2011) parallels the paradigm of operant extinction used to measure wanting in animals (e.g., Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), and so we predicted it would correlate inversely with breath counting accuracy – supporting convergent validity – and do…”
BackgroundA Neural Computational Model of Incentive Salience
Zhang, J., Berridge, K. C., Tindell, A. J., Smith, K. S., & Aldridge, J. W. (2009) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1000437 · Cited by 299 · see citing works
“In PIT, the phasic peaks of cue-triggered ‘wanting’ are manifest as a burst of pressing by the rat on a lever that previously earned sucrose reward: these peaks were dynamically enhanced by microinjection of amphetamine directly into the nucleus accumbens, or by sensitizing drug binges given weeks earlier [72,73] (Fig…”
BackgroundResultSelf-citationForebrain substrates of reward and motivation
Wise, R. A. (2005) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.20689 · Cited by 292 · see citing works
“Similarly, amphetamine injection into nucleus accumbens can increase the leverpressing for sucrose that is triggered by cues that have been associated with sucrose outside the context of the instrumental task (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundRelation of obesity to consummatory and anticipatory food reward
Stice, E. M., Spoor, S. T. P., Ng, J., & Zald, D. H. (2009) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2009.03.020 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
“value (liking) decreases, while anticipatory reward increases [81].”
BackgroundParkinson, J. A., Dalley, J. W., Cardinal, R. N., Bamford, A., Fehnert, B., Lachenal, G., Rudarakanchana, N., Halkerston, K. M., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/s0166-4328(02)00291-7 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
“Consistent with this view, Ahn and Philips [2] observed that NAcc DA release appears to correspond to Pavlovian incentive processes, and several studies have now provided supporting evidence for the view that NAcc DA contributes to the way in which motivationally significant Pavlovian stimuli can direct and invigorate…”
ResultDissociation of Pavlovian and instrumental incentive learning under dopamine antagonists.
Dickinson, A., Smith, J. W., & Mirenowicz, J. (2000) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037//0735-7044.114.3.468 · Cited by 312 · see citing works
Interactions between the “cognitive” and “metabolic” brain in the control of food intake
Berthoud, H. (2007) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2006.12.016 · Cited by 289 · see citing works
Ciano, P. D. (2001) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(01)00235-4 · Cited by 287 · see citing works
“…unlikely because using identical procedures we have shown robust effects of amphetamine infusions into the shell to increase responding with conditioned reinforcement (Parkinson et al. 1999), while similarly large effects were also seen by Wyvell and Berridge (2000), again using vertical cannulae.”
BackgroundMethodReynolds, S. M., & Berridge, K. C. (2001) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.21-09-03261.2001 · Cited by 281 · see citing works
“…paradigm that amphetamine microinjection in this same caudal shell site increases appetitive cue-triggered bar pressing for a sucrose reward (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) and with findings of greatest reward effects in place preference and brain self-stimulation paradigms after histamine…”
BackgroundSelf-citationEvolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation
Berridge, K. C. (2018) · Frontiers in Psychology · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2018.01647 · Cited by 273 · see citing works
“Later studies in our lab went on to identify various psychological signature features of dopamine-mediated ‘wanting’ or incentive salience, which will be described later (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Peciña et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2011; Pecina and Berridge, 2013).”
BackgroundSelf-citationFood reward, hyperphagia, and obesity
Berthoud, H.-R., Lenard, N. R., & Shin, A. C. (2011) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00028.2011 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
“Recent investigations show that lateral hypothalamic neurons expressing orexin (77, 199) and other transmitters such as neurotensin (101, 107) provide modulatory input to midbrain dopamine neurons well known to be crucial players in translating motivation into action (10, 14, 22, 42, 77, 91, 148, 194, 196).”
BackgroundZhang, M., Balmadrid, C., & Kelley, A. E. (2003) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.2.202 · Cited by 268 · see citing works
Effects of deprivation on hedonics and reinforcing value of food
Epstein, L. H., Truesdale, R., Wojcik, A., Paluch, R. A., & Raynor, H. A. (2003) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0031-9384(02)00978-2 · Cited by 267 · see citing works
Dopamine Dysregulation Syndrome: An Overview of its Epidemiology, Mechanisms and Management
OʼSullivan, S. S., Evans, A. H., & Lees, A. J. (2009) · CNS Drugs · doi:10.2165/00023210-200923020-00005 · Cited by 265 · see citing works
Do patients with schizophrenia exhibit aberrant salience?
Roiser, J. P., Stephan, K. E., den Ouden, H. E. M., Barnes, T. R. E., Friston, K. J., & Joyce, E. M. (2009) · Psychological Medicine · doi:10.1017/s0033291708003863 · Cited by 262 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wyvell, C. L., & Berridge, K. C.
- Affiliations
- University of Michigan (US)
- ORCID
- Berridge, Kent C.
- Venue
- The Journal of Neuroscience
- Publisher
- Society for Neuroscience
- Published
- 2000-11-01
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 21
- Pages
- 8122-8130
- ISSN
- 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
- 1529-2401
- PMC
- PMC6772712
- OpenAlex
- W2147639837
- Semantic Scholar
- a2d9c605ad778e77e327324e99cb1286d54e135b
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- 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