The DOI matches its Crossref record; 79 of the 89 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 70 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
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.
Overview
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
Verification
Claims the paper makes
51 Own result · 34 Not checked yet · 18 Own interpretation · 11 Own method · 1 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.””
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Presentation of the CS random nonconditioned cue slightly increased pressing on both levers”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Control versus incentive effects
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“there was a trend of increased responding under the higher drug doses”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“pressing on the sucrose lever in the absence of cues was not significantly enhanced by intraaccumbens amphetamine in either group”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All rats pressed more often on the sucrose lever than on the nonsucrose control lever during the extinction tests”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 1: instrumental testing
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only pressing on the sucrose lever was increased by presentation of the CSϩ”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of cue presentations on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pressing on the control nonsucrose lever was not increased by presentation of the CSϩ cue”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Control versus incentive effects
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 27
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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 Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of cue presentations on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of cues, amphetamine microinjection produced an increase in pressing, especially on the control lever, and this effect occurred in both groups”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 1: instrumental testing
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Sensorimotor arousal versus incentive value of food
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Valenstein, 1991
- Not checked yetcites Robinson and Berridge, 1993
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Robinson, 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the hedonia hypothesis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wise et al., 1978
- Not checked yetcites Wise, 1985 source
- Not checked yetcites Gardner and Lowinson, 1993
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and instrumental performance for food-related cues”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cador et al., 1991
- Not checked yetcites Burns et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Sills and Vaccarino, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988
- Not checked yetcites Blackburn et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Phillips et al., 1993
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reward learning hypotheses suggest that dopamine mediates either response reinforcement or associative predictions of reward”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Di Chiara, 1998
- Not checked yetcites McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Schultz et al., 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conditioned food preferences based on associative learning also increase positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Delamater et al., 1986
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Schulkin, 1989
- Not checked yetcites Breslin et al., 1990
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dickinson et al., 2000
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Statistics.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berridge, 2000a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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.””
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Treit and Berridge, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Doyle et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge 1996, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Control versus incentive effects
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grill and Norgren, 1978
- Not checked yetcites Grill and Berridge, 1985
- Not checked yetcites Berridge, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of two stationary cameras ensured a close-up view of the rats' faces and forelimbs while eliminating off-camera time.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 1: instrumental testing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The testing order of drug doses and vehicle was counterbalanced between subjects using a 4 ϫ 4 Latin square design.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The videotapes were scored in slow motion ( 1 ⁄10 of actual speed) by an observer blind to drug treatment condition.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“C annula placements were verified”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of hedonic impact
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our microinjections were placed into the accumbens shell, the spread of the drug microinjection was unknown.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Enhancement of incentive salience attributed to CS؉
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown and Jenkins, 1968
- Not checked yetcites Robinson and Berridge, 1993
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Robinson, 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, baseline performance (more related to expectations of hedonic value based on previous experience) was not affected.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Enhancement of incentive salience attributed to CS؉
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dickinson et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of conditioned reinforcement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the accumbens shell plays a special role in food reward, but the core may also be important.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parkinson et al., 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of conditioned reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor and Robbins, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Robbins et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Cador et al., 1991
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of conditioned reinforcement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Park and Carr, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Bassareo and Di Chiara, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Swanson et al., 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
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?
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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
In the citing paper
“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]
Citations
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
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×
“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 4,501
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
Self-citationGlantz, S. A. (1981) · Cited by 2,636
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×
“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 1,558 · cited 2×
“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
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×
“…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 1,387 · cited 1×
“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.””
Method
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
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379
Bardo, M. T., & Hammer, R. P. (1991) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/0306-4522(91)90226-e · Cited by 3,229
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
“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
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
“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
“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
Self-citationBerridge, K. C., & Kringelbach, M. L. (2015) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2015.02.018 · Cited by 1,730
“, 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
Self-citationIkemoto, S. (2007) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.brainresrev.2007.05.004 · Cited by 1,477
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 1,505
“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
Motivation concepts in behavioral neuroscience
Berridge, K. C. (2004) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.02.004 · Cited by 1,302
“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
Baxter, M. G., & Murray, E. A. (2002) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn875 · Cited by 1,200
“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
“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
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
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
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
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
“…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
Cools, R. (2006) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2005.03.024 · Cited by 903
“…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 945
“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).”
BackgroundBerke, J. D. (2018) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/s41593-018-0152-y · Cited by 904
The 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
“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
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
Addiction and Cue-Triggered Decision Processes
Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2004) · American Economic Review · doi:10.1257/0002828043052222 · Cited by 733
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
“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
“…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
“…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 701
“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
“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 699
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
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 632
“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 661
“…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
“…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
“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
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 557
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
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
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
“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
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
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
“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
Hedonic Hot Spots in the Brain
Peciña, S., Smith, K. S., & Berridge, K. C. (2006) · The Neuroscientist · doi:10.1177/1073858406293154 · Cited by 441
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 480
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
“…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
“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 436
“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
“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
Wise, R. A., & Robble, M. A. (2020) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-103337 · Cited by 446
Reynolds, S. M., & Berridge, K. C. (2002) · The Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.22-16-07308.2002 · Cited by 403
“…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
“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 408
“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
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 405
“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 393
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
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
“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
“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
The origins of altruism in offspring care.
Preston, S. D. (2013) · Psychological Bulletin · doi:10.1037/a0031755 · Cited by 368
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
“…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 383
“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
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
“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
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
“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
Castro, D. C., Cole, S. L., & Berridge, K. C. (2015) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2015.00090 · Cited by 355
“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
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
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
“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
“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. W., & Baldassarre, G. (2016) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2016.09.020 · Cited by 346
Schroeder, T. (2004) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195172379.001.0001 · Cited by 348
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
“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
“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
“…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
“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 309
“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 306
“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
“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 322
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
Ciano, P. D. (2001) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/s0893-133x(01)00235-4 · Cited by 287
“…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
“…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
“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
“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
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
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
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
Metadata
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
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
