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
Items 201–300 of 763
van der Schaaf, M. E., van Schouwenburg, M. R., Geurts, D. E. M., Schellekens, A. F. A., Buitelaar, J. K., Verkes, R. J., & Cools, R. (2014) · Cerebral Cortex · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs344 · Cited by 102
Aitken, T. J., Greenfield, V. Y., & Wassum, K. M. (2015) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/jnc.13494 · Cited by 118
Molecular substrates of action control in cortico-striatal circuits
Shiflett, M. W., & Balleine, B. W. (2011) · Progress in Neurobiology · doi:10.1016/j.pneurobio.2011.05.007 · Cited by 120
“Intra-NAc infusion of the psychostimulant amphetamine, which enhances DA signaling, increases the general form of PIT (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Neurologically Plausible Distinctions in Cognition Relevant to Drug Use Etiology and Prevention
Stacy, A. W., Ames, S. L., & Knowlton, B. J. (2004) · Substance Use & Misuse · doi:10.1081/ja-200033204 · Cited by 113
“That is, the sucrose cue subsequently elicited an enhanced wanting as evidenced by increased instrumental performance for the sucrose reward but did not increase liking reactions to sucrose (see Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001).”
BackgroundNeurocognitive mechanisms in compulsive sexual behavior disorder
Kowalewska, E., Grubbs, J. B., Potenza, M. N., Gola, M., Draps, M., & Kraus, S. W. (2018) · Current Sexual Health Reports · doi:10.1007/s11930-018-0176-z · Cited by 111
Shin, A. C., Pistell, P. J., Phifer, C. B., & Berthoud, H. R. (2010) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2010.07.017 · Cited by 109
“…from the ventral tegmental area to the nucleus accumbens have been heavily implicated in motivational and reinforcement processes (‘wanting’) of food and other rewards (Schultz et al., 1997, Ikemoto and Panksepp, 1999, Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, Carelli, 2002, Zhang et al., 2003, Wise, 2005).”
BackgroundNucleus Accumbens Cholinergic Interneurons Oppose Cue-Motivated Behavior
Collins, A. L., Aitken, T. J., Huang, I.-W., Shieh, C., Greenfield, V. Y., Monbouquette, H. G., Ostlund, S. B., & Wassum, K. M. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.02.014 · Cited by 110
Mingote, S., Weber, S. M., Ishiwari, K., Correa, M., & Salamone, J. D. (2005) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2005.03972.x · Cited by 101
“…responding to conditioned stimuli (Taylor & Robbins, 1986; Everitt et al., 1989; Cador et al., 1991; Parkinson et al., 1999; Cardinal et al., 2002; De Borchgrave et al., 2002), including pavlovian–instrumental transfer (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000; De Borchgrave et al., 2002; Parkinson et al., 2002).”
BackgroundHedonic and motivational roles of opioids in food reward: Implications for overeating disorders
Peciña, S., & Smith, K. S. (2010) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2010.05.016 · Cited by 104
“…the accumbens hotspot), and compared this to increasing ‘wanting’ signals alone (via amphetamine microinjections in the accumbens to stimulate dopamine, shown previously to engage purely ‘wanting’ mechanisms in behavior and ventral pallidum firing) (Tindell et al., 2009; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Methylphenidate Disrupts Social Play Behavior in Adolescent Rats
Vanderschuren, L. J. M. J., Trezza, V., Griffioen-Roose, S., Schiepers, O. J. G., Van Leeuwen, N., De Vries, T. J., & Schoffelmeer, A. N. M. (2008) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2008.10 · Cited by 105
Individual differences in the influence of task-irrelevant Pavlovian cues on human behavior
Garofalo, S., & di Pellegrino, G. (2015) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00163 · Cited by 113
“…if differences in basic dopaminergic levels cannot fully account for differences in dopamine responsiveness, it has been argued that higher reward-related dopamine release before conditioning might increase attribution of incentive salience to reward-related cues (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001).”
HPA Axis Interactions with Behavioral Systems
Packard, A. E. B., Egan, A. E., & Ulrich‐Lai, Y. M. (2016) · Comprehensive physiology · doi:10.1002/cphy.c150042 · Cited by 138
“Neurobiologically, wanting has been linked to activation of VTA dopaminergic projections and dopamine receptor signaling within the mesocorticolimbic pathway (44, 46, 544, 600).”
Cerebral interactions of pain and reward and their relevance for chronic pain
Becker, S., Gandhi, W., & Schweinhardt, P. (2012) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2012.03.013 · Cited by 103
Learning to lose control: A process-based account of behavioral addiction
Perales, J. C., King, D. L., Navas, J. F., Schimmenti, A., Sescousse, G., Starcevic, V., van Holst, R. J., & Billieux, J. (2020) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.12.025 · Cited by 101
Kirschner, M., Hager, O. M., Bischof, M., Hartmann-Riemer, M. N., Kluge, A., Seifritz, E., Tobler, P. N., & Kaiser, S. (2016) · Journal of Psychiatry and Neuroscience · doi:10.1503/jpn.140383 · Cited by 96
Nucleus Accumbens Acetylcholine Receptors Modulate Dopamine and Motivation
Collins, A. L., Aitken, T. J., Greenfield, V. Y., Ostlund, S. B., & Wassum, K. M. (2016) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2016.81 · Cited by 97
Higgs, S., Spetter, M. S., Thomas, J. M., Rotshtein, P., Lee, M. D., Hallschmid, M., & Dourish, C. T. (2017) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881117736917 · Cited by 108
“On the other hand, evidence suggests that the mesolimbic dopamine neurotransmitter system is crucial for food ‘wanting’ (e.g. Pecina et al., 2003; Tindell et al., 2005; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; for a review see Castro and Berridge, 2014).”
BackgroundSalamone, J., Correa, M., Ferrigno, S. M., Yang, J.-H., Rotolo, R., & Presby, R. (2018) · Pharmacological Reviews · doi:10.1124/pr.117.015107 · Cited by 95
“Furthermore, considerable evidence indicates that accumbens DA regulates Pavlovian approach behavior and the activating effects of Pavlovian-conditioned stimuli on instrumental behavior (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Parkinson et al., 2002; Lex and Hauber, 2008).”
BackgroundYun, I. A., Nicola, S. M., & Fields, H. L. (2004) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2004.03476.x · Cited by 100
“In experiments that measure the effects of Pavlovian cues on instrumental responding, increasing NAc dopamine results in enhanced cue-mediated responding (Taylor & Robbins, 1984, 1986; Wolterink et al., 1993; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundThe Neuronal Pathways Mediating the Behavioral and Addictive Properties of Nicotine
Balfour, D. J. K. (2009) · Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-69248-5_8 · Cited by 99
Dual Roles of Dopamine in Food and Drug Seeking: The Drive-Reward Paradox
Wise, R. A. (2012) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.09.001 · Cited by 100
Winstanley, C. A., Cocker, P. J., & Rogers, R. D. (2011) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2010.230 · Cited by 101
Murschall, A., & Hauber, W. (2006) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.127106 · Cited by 97
“As stimulation of mesoaccumbens dopamine neurotransmission increased PIT (Wyvell and Berridge 2000), the CeN has been suggested to control PIT by modulating the activity of mesoaccumbens dopamine projections (Hall et al. 2001) through efferents to the vicinity of midbrain dopamine neurons (Wallace…”
Applying incentive sensitization models to behavioral addiction
Thomsen, K. R., Fjorback, L. O., Møller, A., & Lou, H. C. (2014) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2014.07.009 · Cited by 103
Heterogeneity in striatal dopamine circuits: Form and function in dynamic reward seeking
Collins, A. L., & Saunders, B. T. (2020) · Journal of Neuroscience Research · doi:10.1002/jnr.24587 · Cited by 93
“…associated with the receipt of rewards, and representing ongoing motivational drive in reward seeking, rather than associative learning per se (Bassareo & Di Chiara, 1999; Kelley & Delfs, 1991; Saddoris, Cacciapaglia, Wightman, & Carelli, 2015; Saunders et al., 2018; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundLearning about Multiple Attributes of Reward in Pavlovian Conditioning
Delamater, A. R., & Oakeshott, S. (2007) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1390.008 · Cited by 96
Hanlon, E. C., Baldo, B. A., Sadeghian, K., & Kelley, A. E. (2004) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-003-1654-0 · Cited by 92
“2002), and supports the hypothesis that dopamine does not mediate the rewarding or hedonic aspects of the consummatory act (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundWakabayashi, K. T., Fields, H. L., & Nicola, S. M. (2004) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2004.01.013 · Cited by 94
Brenes, J. C., & Fornaguera, J. (2008) · Neuroscience Letters · doi:10.1016/j.neulet.2008.03.045 · Cited by 99
Multiple Timescales of Memory in Lateral Habenula and Dopamine Neurons
Bromberg-Martin, E. S., Matsumoto, M., Nakahara, H., & Hikosaka, O. (2010) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2010.06.031 · Cited by 97
“These signals are translated into dopamine release in downstream brain structures, which controls motivation to seek rewards (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) and enables synaptic plasticity to learn the reward value of behavioral actions and outcomes (Reynolds et al., 2001; Wise, 2004).”
Wassum, K. M., Ostlund, S. B., Loewinger, G. C., & Maidment, N. T. (2013) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.12.005 · Cited by 97
Meyer, P., Ma, S. T., & Robinson, T. E. (2011) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-011-2429-7 · Cited by 93
“The second caveat is that the incentive value of drug cues can be distinguished from their primary reinforcing properties (Palmatier et al. 2006; Wyvell and Berridge 2000), that is, an alteration of the primary reinforcing effect of a drug does not necessarily alter the conditioned reinforcing…”
Wanting and liking: Separable components in problematic eating behavior?
Polk, S. E., LaFata, E. M., Furman, C. R., & Gearhardt, A. N. (2016) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2016.11.015 · Cited by 95
“…separated in animal models using pharmaceutical manipulations and hyperdopaminergic knockout mice, resulting in increased wanting but stable or decreased liking (Berridge & Valenstein, 1991; Peci~na, Cagniard, Berridge, Aldridge, & Zhuang, 2003; Smith & Berridge, 2005; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
The role of learning-related dopamine signals in addiction vulnerability
Huys, Q. J. M., Tobler, P. N., Hasler, G., & Flagel, S. B. (2014) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/b978-0-444-63425-2.00003-9 · Cited by 92
“, 2011; Murschall and Hauber, 2006; Lex and Hauber, 2008), and DA stimulation promotes it (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000); whereas model-based behaviour is often rather more resilient to DA manipulations (e.”
BackgroundGhrelin regulates phasic dopamine and nucleus accumbens signaling evoked by food‐predictive stimuli
Cone, J. J., Roitman, J. D., & Roitman, M. F. (2015) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/jnc.13080 · Cited by 87
Wood, J., & Ahmari, S. E. (2015) · Frontiers in Systems Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnsys.2015.00171 · Cited by 85
“, 2007), and intra-accumbens microinjections of amphetamine, an indirect dopamine agonist, enhance PIT (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundOginsky, M. F., Maust, J. D., Corthell, J. T., & Ferrario, C. R. (2015) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-015-4157-x · Cited by 85
“Furthermore, locomotor sensitization is also associated with enhanced motivational responses to food cues that can contribute to the pursuit of food rewards (Wyvell and Berridge 2000, 2001).”
Stress increases cue-triggered “wanting” for sweet reward in humans.
Pool, E. R., Brosch, T., Delplanque, S., & Sander, D. (2014) · Journal of Experimental Psychology Animal Learning and Cognition · doi:10.1037/xan0000052 · Cited by 84
“E-mail: eva.pool@unige.ch Journal of Experimental Psychology: Animal Learning and Cognition © 2014 American Psychological Association 2015, Vol. 41, No. 2, 128–136 2329-8456/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xan0000052 128 Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
InfluentialNelson, A. J. D., & Killcross, S. (2013) · Frontiers in Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnins.2013.00076 · Cited by 81
“Dopamine activity in the nucleus accumbens, a structure containing the highest concentration of D2 receptors in the rat brain (Bentivoglio and Morelli, 2005), has been widely implicated in the reinforcing and motivational properties of both natural rewards and drugs of abuse (e.g., Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988; Mark et…”
BackgroundComplementary Roles of Orexin and Melanin-Concentrating Hormone in Feeding Behavior
Barson, J. R., Morganstern, I., & LEIBOWITZ, S. F. (2013) · International Journal of Endocrinology · doi:10.1155/2013/983964 · Cited by 87
“Seemingly then, palatable food intake can be increased from an OX-induced elevation of DA, which increases arousal and seeking of palatable food [118, 119], but it can also be increased by an MCH-induced reduction inDA,which produces anhedonia (see Section 6.”
BackgroundIs comfort food really comforting? Mechanisms underlying stress-induced eating
Pool, E. R., Delplanque, S., Coppin, G., & Sander, D. (2015) · Food Research International · doi:10.1016/j.foodres.2014.12.034 · Cited by 87
“Rodents with increased dopaminergic mesolimbic activity mobilize more effort to obtain highly palatable food (e.g., sucrose) after the perception of the Pavlovian stimulus than do rodents in a normal activity state (Wassum et al., 2011; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000, 2001).”
InfluentialDopamine-Based Reward Circuitry Responsivity, Genetics, and Overeating
Stice, E. M., Yokum, S., Zald, D. H., & Dagher, A. (2010) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2010_89 · Cited by 81
Saddoris, M. P., Stamatakis, A. M., & Carelli, R. (2011) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07683.x · Cited by 84
“Similarly, intrashell infusions of amphetamine (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000) or corticotropin-releasing factor (Pecina et al., 2006) results in potentiating the transfer effect, whereas lesions of the shell but not the core block this amphetamine potentiating effect (Parkinson et al., 1999).”
BackgroundInfluentialHedges, D. M., Obray, J. D., Yorgason, J. T., Jang, E. Y., Weeresekara, V., Uys, J. D. K., Bellinger, F. P., & Steffensen, S. C. (2017) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2017.291 · Cited by 81
Murphy, E. R., Robinson, E. S. J., Theobald, D. E. H., Dalley, J. W., & Robbins, T. W. (2008) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2008.06309.x · Cited by 80
“Intra-shell amphetamine potentiated Pavlovian cue-elicited instrumental performance (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundWeber, S. C., Beck‐Schimmer, B., Kajdi, M.-E., Müller, D., Tobler, P. N., & Quednow, B. B. (2016) · Translational Psychiatry · doi:10.1038/tp.2016.113 · Cited by 76
Johnson, A. W. (2017) · International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2017.06.012 · Cited by 79
“…discovery that DAergic manipulations have no influence on appetitive taste reactivity responses to sweet tasting solutions (Berridge et al., 1989; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), the idea that DA functions in the hedonic evaluation of food has been questioned and much research has focused on its…”
BackgroundNeural mechanisms underlying obesity and drug addiction
Trinko, R., Sears, R. M., Guarnieri, D. J., & Dileone, R. (2007) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2007.01.001 · Cited by 79
“For example, intraNAc amphetamine increases the seeking of a sucrose reinforcement in response to a conditioned cue [52], and dopamine in the NAc plays a role in driving behavioral responses to cues that predict reward [53].”
BackgroundThe uncertainty processing theory of motivation
Anselme, P. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2009.12.020 · Cited by 77
“The same techniques can be used here, but the 'liking' process is behaviourally measured by reward-induced orofacial hedonic reactions during oral consumption [179] [181] [260] .”
Incentive motivation: ‘wanting’ roles of central amygdala circuitry
Warlow, S. M., & Berridge, K. C. (2021) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113376 · Cited by 84
Self-citationSmittenaar, P., Chase, H. W., Aarts, E., Nusselein, B., Bloem, B. R., & Cools, R. (2012) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2012.08043.x · Cited by 73
Dopamine-glutamate neuron projections to the nucleus accumbens medial shell and behavioral switching
Mingote, S., Amsellem, A., Kempf, A., Rayport, S., & Chuhma, N. (2019) · Neurochemistry International · doi:10.1016/j.neuint.2019.104482 · Cited by 75
Ciano, P. D., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/00008877-200209000-00013 · Cited by 73
“, 1999) and perhaps the response-potentiating effect of passive exposure to Pavlovian conditioned stimuli (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialHeidbreder, C. A., Andreoli, M., Marcon, C., Hutcheson, D. M., Gardner, E. L., & Ashby, C. R. (2007) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/j.1369-1600.2007.00051.x · Cited by 72
Sanders, A. C., Hussain, A. J., Hen, R., & Zhuang, X. (2007) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1301368 · Cited by 72
“It has been reported that nucleus accumbens infusion of amphetamine enhances the incentive motivational effect of the Pavlovian conditioned cue, presumably owing to increases in dopaminergic activity (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHobbs, M., Remington, B., & Glautier, S. (2005) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-004-2026-0 · Cited by 70
“Several studies have shown that dopamine agonists/antagonists alter consumption of food reward but have no impact on affective reactions (Treit and Berridge 1990; Pecina et al. 1997; Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundThe effort-doors task: Examining the temporal dynamics of effort-based reward processing using ERPs
Bowyer, C. B., Brush, C. J., Threadgill, A. H., Harmon‐Jones, E., Treadway, M. T., Patrick, C. J., & Hajcak, G. (2021) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2020.117656 · Cited by 75
(2013) · The MIT Press eBooks · doi:10.7551/mitpress/9780262019583.001.0001 · Cited by 69
Britton, J. C., Taylor, S. F., Berridge, K. C., et al. (2006) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/1528-3542.6.1.150 · Cited by 69
Self-citationHebart, M. N., & Gläscher, J. P. (2014) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-014-3682-3 · Cited by 66
“…receptors in the nucleus accumbens reduces appetitive PIT (Lex and Hauber 2008), dopamine-agonist amphetamine injections enhance appetitive PIT (Wyvell and Berridge 2000), and nucleus accumbens lesions or inactivation reduces appetitive PIT (Corbit et al. 2001; Hall et al. 2001; Corbit and…”
BackgroundZellner, M. R., & Ranaldi, R. (2009) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2009.11.011 · Cited by 71
“Pavlovian CSs can facilitate the acquisition of a novel instrumental response (see Grindley, 1929; Skinner, 1938).”
InfluentialJosselyn, S., Falls, W., Gewirtz, J. C., Pistell, P., & Davis, M. (2005) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/sj.npp.1300530 · Cited by 66
“Importantly, both of these effects of are blocked by lesions of the NAC (Balleine and Killcross, 1994; Parkinson et al, 2000; Corbit et al, 2001; Hall et al, 2001) while enhancing dopaminergic transmission in the NAC increases Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundWinkielman, P., & Berridge, K. C. (2003) · Political Psychology · doi:10.1046/j.1467-9221.2003.00346.x · Cited by 66
“In other words, the experienced hedonic utility of the sugar reward remained unchanged by mesolimbic activation, even though its decision utility was much greater (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundMethodSelf-citationHellberg, S. N., Russell, T. I., & Robinson, M. J. F. (2019) · Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3758/s13415-018-00662-3 · Cited by 65
“…responsible for pleasure, this has since been disproved, and a large body of evidence suggests that it instead modulates Bwanting^ (Berridge & Valenstein, 1991; Peciña, Cagniard, Berridge, Aldridge, & Zhuang, 2003; Tindell, Berridge, Zhang, Peciña, & Aldridge, 2005; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
Halbout, B., Marshall, A. T., Azimi, A., Liljeholm, M., Mahler, S. V., Wassum, K. M., & Ostlund, S. B. (2019) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.43551 · Cited by 69
“…reward-seeking behavior critically depends on dopamine signaling (Dickinson et al., 2000; Ostlund and Maidment, 2011; Wassum et al., 2011), particularly in the nucleus accumbens (NAc)(Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Lex and Hauber, 2008; Wassum et al., 2013; Ostlund et al., 2014; Aitken et al., 2016).”
BackgroundMolecular and cellular mechanisms of dopamine-mediated behavioral plasticity in the striatum
Cerovic, M., d’Isa, R., Tonini, R., & Brambilla, R. (2013) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2013.06.013 · Cited by 77
“…of dopamine antagonist abolished the motivating effect of the conditioned stimulus presentation on the instrumental performance (Lex & Hauber, 2008), whereas injection of the psychostimulant amphetamine, which promotes dopamine release, enhances the Pavlovian transfer (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundCacciapaglia, F., Saddoris, M. P., Wightman, R. M., & Carelli, R. M. (2012) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2011.12.027 · Cited by 68
“In support, intra-shell infusions of amphetamine (a dopamine agonist) potentiates the ability of sucrose conditioned stimuli to increase instrumental responses for sucrose (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) suggesting that the NAc shell may play an important role in using instructional cues to guide and modulate behavior (Sa…”
The Cambridge Handbook of Substance and Behavioral Addictions
Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591 · Cited by 64
Reichelt, A. C., Westbrook, R. F., & Morris, M. J. (2015) · British Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1111/bph.13321 · Cited by 62
“…elevating NAc dopamine had no effect on hedonic responding for sucrose, but increased lever pressing for sucrose, indicative of enhanced wanting (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), supporting the proposal that dopamine can mediate reward-related cues to trigger ‘wanting’, but not the hedonic appraisal…”
BackgroundAgustí, A., Campillo, I., Balzano, T., Benítez‐Páez, A., López‐Almela, I., Romaní‐Pérez, M., Forteza, J., Felipo, V., Avena, N. M., & Sanz, Y. (2021) · Molecular Neurobiology · doi:10.1007/s12035-021-02462-2 · Cited by 65
Food reward in the obese and after weight loss induced by calorie restriction and bariatric surgery
Berthoud, H., Zheng, H., & Shin, A. C. (2012) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.2012.06573.x · Cited by 67
Enhanced incentive motivation in obesity-prone rats is mediated by NAc core CP-AMPARs
Derman, R. C., & Ferrario, C. R. (2017) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2017.12.039 · Cited by 63
“2A; OP n = 20; OR n = 19), a classic measure of incentive motivation (Berridge and Robinson, 2003; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
From Experienced Utility to Decision Utility
Berridge, K. C., & O’Doherty, J. P. (2013) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-416008-8.00018-8 · Cited by 82
Self-citationGender differences in the behavioral and subjective effects of methamphetamine in healthy humans
Mayo, L. M., Paul, E. R., DeArcangelis, J., Hedger, K. V., & de Wit, H. (2019) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-019-05276-2 · Cited by 64
“Consistent with this, preclinical evidence shows that amphetamine infusion into the nucleus accumbens increases the incentive value of a non-drug reward, such that animals will work more for a sucrose reward under the influence of amphetamine (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundSafety signals as instrumental reinforcers during free-operant avoidancePreprint
Fernando, A. B. P., Urcelay, G. P., Mar, A. C., Dickinson, A., & Robbins, T. W. (2014) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.034603.114 · Cited by 66
Lex, B., & Hauber, W. (2010) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2009.11.002 · Cited by 61
Dalley, J. W., Chudasama, Y., Theobald, D. E. H., Pettifer, C., Fletcher, C., & Robbins, T. W. (2002) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-002-1078-2 · Cited by 60
“Everitt et al. 1999; Wyvell and Berridge 2000 ) theoretical speculations about the role of mesolimbic DA in incentive motivation.”
BackgroundThe influence of leptin on the dopamine system and implications for ingestive behavior
Dileone, R. (2009) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/ijo.2009.68 · Cited by 60
Konanur, V., Hsu, T. M., Kanoski, S. E., Hayes, M. R., & Roitman, M. F. (2019) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2019.112771 · Cited by 59
Dopamine dynamics are dispensable for movement but promote reward responses
Cai, X., Liu, C., Tsutsui‐Kimura, I., Lee, J.-H., Guo, C., Banerjee, A., Lee, J., Amo, R., Xie, Y., Patriarchi, T., et al. (2024) · Nature · doi:10.1038/s41586-024-08038-z · Cited by 64
“It has been proposed that motivation is mediated by phasic dopamine activities 20,57 , and it may be reduced because these dynamics are disrupted after RIM ablation.”
Pimozide Injections into the Nucleus accumbens Disrupt Maternal Behaviour in Lactating Rats
Silva, M. R. P., Bernardi, M. M., Cruz‐Casallas, P. E., & Felício, L. F. (2003) · Pharmacology & Toxicology · doi:10.1034/j.1600-0773.2003.930106.x · Cited by 59
The role of dopamine in the perceptual modulation of nociceptive stimuli by monetary wins or losses
Becker, S., Gandhi, W., Elfassy, N. M., & Schweinhardt, P. (2013) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12303 · Cited by 61
“…to escape or avoid nociceptive stimuli, which would be more in line with the well-established role of dopamine in the context of reward, i.e. being crucial for motivational drive and incentive salience (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000; Leyton et al., 2002; Pecina et al., 2003; Smith et al., 2011).”
BackgroundIncentive-sensitization and drug ?wanting?
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2004) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-003-1602-z · Cited by 58
“Shifts in dose–response rate functions could be due to changes in any of these processes, making them ambiguous to interpret (Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Berridge and Robinson 2003; Robinson and Berridge 2003).”
BackgroundInfluentialSelf-citationTesting the validity of implicit measures of wanting and liking
Tibboel, H., Houwer, J. D., Spruyt, A., Field, M., Kemps, E., & Crombez, G. (2011) · Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.jbtep.2011.01.002 · Cited by 57
“Originally, dissociations between wanting and liking have been examined in animals (e.g.,Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundToward sophisticated basal ganglia neuromodulation: Review on basal ganglia deep brain stimulation
Cunha, C. D., Boschen, S. L., Gómez‐A, A., Ross, E. K., Gibson, W. S. J., Min, H.-K. P., Lee, K. H., & Blaha, C. D. (2015) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.02.003 · Cited by 61
Altered reward value of carbohydrate snacks for female smokers withdrawn from nicotine
Spring, B. J. (2003) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2003.08.008 · Cited by 56
Orbitofrontal Cortex and Cognitive‐Motivational Impairments in Psychostimulant Addiction
Olausson, P., Jentsch, J. D., Krueger‐Burg, D., Tronson, N. C., Nairn, A. C., & Taylor, J. R. (2007) · Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · doi:10.1196/annals.1401.016 · Cited by 56
Jurado-Parras, M. T., Gruart, A., & Delgado-Garcia, J. M. (2012) · Learning & Memory · doi:10.1101/lm.024760.111 · Cited by 56
Neurobiology of Nutrition and Obesity
Morrison, C. D., & Berthoud, H. (2007) · Nutrition Reviews · doi:10.1301/nr.2007.dec.517-534 · Cited by 71
Neurobiological underpinnings of reward anticipation and outcome evaluation in gambling disorder
Linnet, J. (2014) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2014.00100 · Cited by 55
Ghitza, U. E., Fabbricatore, A. T., Prokopenko, V. F., & West, M. O. (2004) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00268.2004 · Cited by 54
“The prelimbic cortex may be an additional component of this circuitry and may be involved in retrieving information about this rewardoutcome relationship (Corbit and Balleine 2003).”
Nargeot, R., Petrissans, C., & Simmers, J. (2007) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1950-07.2007 · Cited by 52
“…behaviors, including feeding and sexual behavior and often results from persistent changes in a specific component of a subject’s behavior after an associative reward stimulus has been withdrawn (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001; Joel and Avisar, 2001; Belozertseva et al., 2004; Joel et al., 2005).”
Hurliman, E., Nagode, J. C., & Pardo, J. V. (2005) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2563-04.2005 · Cited by 52
“Furthermore, although we observe activations in VTA/SN, there is no clear consensus in the literature regarding the structures underlying aspects of reward processing [ " wanting " vs " liking " (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000)].”
Straley, M. E., Van Oeffelen, W., Theze, S., Sullivan, A. M., O’Mahony, S. M., Cryan, J. F., & O’Keeffe, G. W. (2017) · Brain Behavior and Immunity · doi:10.1016/j.bbi.2016.06.002 · Cited by 52
Lack of opioid or dopaminergic effects on unconditioned sexual incentive motivation in male rats.
Ågmo, A. (2003) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.117.1.55 · Cited by 58
Reassessing wanting and liking in the study of mesolimbic influence on food intake
Nicola, S. M. (2016) · American Journal of Physiology-Regulatory, Integrative and Comparative Physiology · doi:10.1152/ajpregu.00234.2016 · Cited by 52
“Complementarily, activation of dopamine release within the NAc facilitates the PIT effect (282).”
BackgroundJacobs, E. H., Smit, A. B., Vries, T. J. D., & Schoffelmeer, A. N. M. (2004) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1080/13556210412331284748 · Cited by 52
“This is in accordance with the proposed role of this brain region as mediator of the impact of previously learned associations on goal-directed behaviour (Parkinson et al., 1999; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
ResultPalmatier, M. I., Marks, K. R., Jones, S. A., Freeman, K. S., Wissman, K. M., & Sheppard, A. B. (2012) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2892-9 · Cited by 50
“conditional motivational properties, making these paradigms less than ideal for investigating incentive motivation (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
Pleasure, Unfelt Affect, and Irrational Desire
Berridge, K. C. (2004) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511806582.015 · Cited by 50
“She combined brain tweaks, in the form of amphetamine microinjections that activated mesolimbic dopamine systems, with Dickinson’s techniques for assessing ordinary cognitive wanting versus cue-triggered “wanting” for a sugar pellet ( Wyvell & Berridge, 2000 ).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationPortal glucose influences the sensory, cortical and reward systems in rats
Delaere, F., Akaoka, H., Vadder, F. D., Duchampt, A., & Mithieux, G. (2013) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.12354 · Cited by 61
“The activation of the central amygdala (Corbit & Balleine, 2005; Balleine & Killcross, 2006; Mahler & Berridge, 2009) or nucleus accumbens (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000; Zheng et al., 2007) is consistent with © 2013 Federation of European Neuroscience Societies and John Wiley & Sons Ltd European Journal…”
Result
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
