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 301–400 of 763
Orsini, C. A., Setlow, B., DeJesus, M. A., Galaviz, S., Loesch, K. A., Ioerger, T. R., & WALLIS, D. E. (2016) · Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine · doi:10.1002/mgg3.207 · Cited by 49
“…et al. 2012), the increases in food reward-seeking behavior in these mice may be due to dopamine-mediated enhancements in the motivational value of the food reward or willingness to overcome effort costs to obtain reward (Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Floresco et al. 2008; Salamone and Correa 2012).”
BackgroundEndocannabinoid Signaling in Motivation, Reward, and Addiction
Sagheddu, C., Muntoni, A. L., Pistis, M., & Melis, M. (2015) · International review of neurobiology · doi:10.1016/bs.irn.2015.10.004 · Cited by 50
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2003) · International Congress Series · doi:10.1016/s0531-5131(03)01013-6 · Cited by 50
“Similarly, PIT can be enhanced by intraaccumbens amphetamine in the same way that conditioned reinforcement is [125].”
BackgroundHernández, J. M., Lanuza, E., & Martínez‐Garciá, F. (2006) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2006.04944.x · Cited by 50
“The effects of DA lesions (Berridge et al., 1989) and the behaviour of DAT knockdown mutants (Peciña et al., 2003) suggest that DAwould signal the ‘incentive salience of stimuli’ (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000) rather than its hedonic value.”
BackgroundMultimodal characterization of the human nucleus accumbens
Cartmell, S. C. D., Tian, Q., Thio, B. J., Leuze, C. W., Li, Y., Williams, N., Yang, G., Ben-Dor, G. A., Deisseroth, K. A., Grill, W. M., et al. (2019) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2019.05.019 · Cited by 44
“, 2007), and further that the shell is thought to be preferentially involved in motivational and incentive-related processes (Kelley, 1999; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), NAc subregion activity was investigated during trials in which subjects won money (Reward versus Baseline).”
BackgroundLong-lasting sensitization of reward-directed behavior by amphetamine
Mendez, I. A., Williams, M. T., Bhavsar, A., Lu, A. P., Bizon, J. L., & Setlow, B. (2009) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2009.01.034 · Cited by 50
“It should be noted that the enhanced food consumption observed in the potentiated eating task was not likely due to enhanced “liking” of the food reward, as repeated drug exposure does not appear to enhance rewards' hedonic properties [25,43].”
BackgroundNicotine serves as a feature-positive modulator of Pavlovian appetitive conditioning in rats
Palmatier, M. I., Peterson, J., Wilkinson, J. L., & Bevins, R. A. (2004) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/01.fbp.0000132915.11693.8e · Cited by 48
“…that nicotine and amphetamine can enhance the approach or seeking behaviors controlled by environmental cues (e.g. tone/light or clicker) that are conditional signals for rewarding events (e.g. sucrose pellets or water access, see Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001; Olausson et al., 2003; 2004a, b).”
BackgroundReed, D. D., Naudé, G. P., Gelino, B. W., & Amlung, M. T. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.011 · Cited by 48
Perry, M. L., Leinninger, G. M., Chen, R., Luderman, K. D., Yang, H., Gnegy, M. E., Myers, M. G., & Kennedy, R. T. (2010) · Journal of Neurochemistry · doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2010.06757.x · Cited by 47
“The mesolimbic dopamine (DA) system controls the incentive salience of food (Wyvell and Berridge 2000) (as well as other natural rewards and drugs of abuse).”
BackgroundEarly life experience alters behavioral responses to sweet food and accumbal dopamine metabolism
Silveira, P. P., Portella, A. K., Assis, S. A. C. N., Nieto, F., Diehl, L. A., Crema, L. M., Peres, W., Costa, G., Scorza, C., Quillfeldt, J. A., et al. (2009) · International Journal of Developmental Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.ijdevneu.2009.08.018 · Cited by 53
“When concerning food ingestion, accumbal dopamine seems to interfere with the approach or to modulate the perceived incentive salience of the reward (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Holland, P. C., Hatfield, T., & Gallagher, M. (2001) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.115.4.945 · Cited by 49
Brain Reward Systems for Food Incentives and Hedonics in Normal Appetite and Eating Disorders
Berridge, K. C. (2007) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-012370633-1/50008-6 · Cited by 48
Self-citationThe Prevention and Treatment of Gambling Disorders: Some Art, Some Science
Derevensky, J. L. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.024 · Cited by 45
Richard, J. M., & Berridge, K. C. (2010) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2010.07553.x · Cited by 51
“…to tastes, and the bulk of the available evidence indicates that dopamine does not actually mediate ‘liking’ or the hedonic impact of sensory pleasure (Berridge et al., 1989; Peciña et al., 1997, 2003; Berridge & Robinson, 1998; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000, 2001; Tindell et al., 2005; Berridge, 2007).”
BackgroundSelf-citationPeoples, L. L., & Cavanaugh, D. J. (2003) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.00849.2002 · Cited by 45
“…on reward-related behavior and have been observed to facilitate some types of reward-related learning (e.g., Cardinal et al. 2000; Harmer and Phillips 1998; Killcross et al. 1997; Krivanek and McGaugh 1969; Robbins 1978; Robbins et al. 1989; Taylor and Horger 1999; Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundInfluentialConsidering the Overlap and Nonoverlap of Compulsivity, Impulsivity, and Addiction
Blum, A. W., & Grant, J. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.038 · Cited by 44
Neurobiological Foundations of Behavioral Addictions
Vaccaro, A. G., & Potenza, M. N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.016 · Cited by 45
Vollbrecht, P. J., Nobile, C. W., Chadderdon, A. M., Jutkiewicz, E. M., & Ferrario, C. R. (2015) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2015.09.022 · Cited by 45
“Numerous studies have shown that neuroadaptations accompanying locomotor sensitization enhance the motivational properties of food and stimuli associated with food (i.e., food cues; e.g., Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001).”
BackgroundHippocampal Input to the Nucleus Accumbens Shell Enhances Food Palatability
Yang, A. K., Mendoza, J. A., Lafferty, C. K., Lacroix, F., & Britt, J. P. (2019) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2019.09.007 · Cited by 43
Giertler, C., Bohn, I., & Hauber, W. (2003) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02904.x · Cited by 45
Homayoun, H., & Moghaddam, B. (2009) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.1460-9568.2009.06679.x · Cited by 45
“This condition also minimized the impact of secondary reinforcement because the Pavlovian cues were presented non-continent on instrumental response, thus serving to elicit these responses rather than reinforcing them as would occur in a conditioned reinforcement paradigm (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
Clark, J. J., & Bernstein, I. L. (2006) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.1.206 · Cited by 45
Mindfulness-Based Interventions Applied to Addiction Treatments
Kechter, A., & Black, D. S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.040 · Cited by 43
Multiple Memory Systems, Addiction, and Health Habits: New Routes for Translational Science
Stacy, A. W., Pike, J. R., & Lee, A. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.017 · Cited by 43
Neurobiology of Substance Addictions
Christie, N. C., & Bechara, A. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.015 · Cited by 44
Sensitization of Incentive Salience and the Transition to Addiction
Warlow, S. M., Baumgartner, H. M., Freeland, C. M., Naffziger, E. E., Olney, J. J., Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, M. J. F. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.006 · Cited by 46
“Animal models have further demonstrated that this drug-induced sensitization chronically heightens dopamine release, increases susceptibility to drug cues, and causes increases in “wanting” (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, 2001; Peciña et al., 2003).”
BackgroundSelf-citationTanning as an Addiction: The State of the Research and Implications for Intervention
Miller, K. A., & Mays, D. M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.037 · Cited by 43
Schulte, E. M., Schiestl, E. T., & Gearhardt, A. N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.035 · Cited by 43
Fenu, S., & Chiara, G. D. (2003) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1046/j.1460-9568.2003.02899.x · Cited by 45
Behavioral Economics and Addictive Disorders
Jarmolowicz, D. P., & Schneider, T. D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.005 · Cited by 42
Prevention and Treatment of Compulsive Buying Disorder
Galimov, A., & Black, D. W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.027 · Cited by 42
Blum, K., Roy, A. K., Podesta, A., Modestino, E. J., Steinberg, B., Gondré-Lewis, M. C., Baron, D. A., Thanos, P. K., Lott, L., Badgaiyan, S., et al. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.031 · Cited by 42
Prevention and Treatment of “Food Addiction”
Davis, C., & Mason, A. E. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.023 · Cited by 42
Human Neurobiological Approaches to Hedonically Motivated Behaviors
Burger, K. S., Shearrer, G. E., & Sadler, J. R. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.009 · Cited by 42
Feedback Models for Gambling Control: The Use and Efficacy of Online Responsible Gambling Tools
Griffiths, M. D. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.034 · Cited by 42
Deep and beautiful. The reward prediction error hypothesis of dopamine
Colombo, M. (2013) · Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.shpsc.2013.10.006 · Cited by 46
Guy, E. G., Choi, E., & Pratt, W. E. (2011) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2011.01.024 · Cited by 45
Singer, B. F., Guptaroy, B., Austin, C. J., Wohl, I., Lovic, V., Seiler, J. L., Vaughan, R. A., Gnegy, M. E., Robinson, T. E., & Aragona, B. J. (2015) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.13134 · Cited by 43
“We hypothesize, therefore, that increased lever contacts in STs reflects the ability of AMPH to amplify the incentive properties of the CS (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000), and it appears to do so preferentially in rats that already attribute incentive salience to the CS (STs).”
InfluentialPotential roles for opioid receptors in motivation and major depressive disorder
Callaghan, C. K., Rouine, J., & O’Mara, S. M. (2018) · Progress in brain research · doi:10.1016/bs.pbr.2018.07.009 · Cited by 45
The Effect of Dopamine Agonists on Adaptive and Aberrant Salience in Parkinson's Disease
Nagy, H., Levy-Gigi, E., Somlai, Z., Takáts, A., Bereczki, D., & Kéri, S. (2012) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2011.278 · Cited by 42
“It has also been shown that conditioned stimuli increase the speed of responses, and this effect is mediated by dopaminergic signals in the ventral striatum (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundDopamine and the Neural “Now”: Essay and Review of Addiction: A Disorder of Choice
Lewis, M. D. (2011) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/1745691611400235 · Cited by 42
“…striatum involved in reward seeking; the amygdala, involved in emotional conditioning; and the orbitofrontal cortex, where expectancies are encoded and value is assigned (Robinson & Berridge, 1993, 2003; Rosenkranz & Grace, 2002; Schultz, 2007a; Volkow & Fowler, 2000; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundOstlund, S. B., & Maidment, N. (2012) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2011.217 · Cited by 52
“Studies using procedures likely to support the general form of transfer have shown that this effect is attenuated by dopamine receptor antagonism (Dickinson et al, 2000; Lex and Hauber, 2008; Wassum et al, 2011) and is potentiated by central infusions of the indirect dopamine agonist amphetamine (Wyvell and Berridge,…”
ResultInfluentialBolmont, M., Cacioppo, J. T., & Cacioppo, S. (2014) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/0956797614539706 · Cited by 47
“…various hedonic experiences of reward (i.e., wanting vs. liking; Berridge, 1996); wanting is related to the processing of the immediate reward value of a stimulus via dopaminergic neurotransmission in the ventral striatum (Cacioppo et al., 2012; Cacioppo & Cacioppo, 2013; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundContributions of nucleus accumbens dopamine to cognitive flexibility
Radke, A. K., Kocharian, A., Covey, D. P., Lovinger, D. M., Cheer, J. F., Mateo, Y., & Holmes, A. (2018) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.14152 · Cited by 44
“…known to be potent evokers of DA in the NAc and have been shown to causally contribute to cue-invigoration of instrumental responding for reward (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000; Satoh et al., 2003; Roitman et al., 2004; Berridge, 2007; Lex & Hauber, 2008; Beierholm et al., 2013; Pecina & Berridge,…”
BackgroundInfluentialMorrone-Strupinsky, J. V., & Depue, R. A. (2003) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/s0191-8869(03)00204-6 · Cited by 44
Emotional attention for erotic stimuli: Cognitive and brain mechanisms
Sennwald, V., Pool, E. R., Brosch, T., Delplanque, S., Bianchi‐Demicheli, F., & Sander, D. (2015) · The Journal of Comparative Neurology · doi:10.1002/cne.23859 · Cited by 42
“These studies suggest that wanting determines the behaviors of reward seeking, independently of the liking component (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Investigating dopamine and glucocorticoid systems as underlying mechanisms of anhedonia
Lamontagne, S. J., Melendez, S. I., & Olmstead, M. C. (2018) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-018-5007-4 · Cited by 43
Carr, K. D., de Vaca, S. C., Sun, Y., & Chau, L. S. (2008) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1355-9 · Cited by 41
“Convergent results of in vivo microdialysis, microinjection mapping, and intracerebral drug self-administration studies attribute a critical role to NAc medial shell DA transmission in the primary reinforcing effects of abused drugs and the incentive motivational processes via which amphetamine invigorates instrumenta…”
Shiflett, M. W., Martini, R. P., Mauna, J. C., Foster, R. L., Peet, E., & Thiels, E. (2008) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.2383-07.2008 · Cited by 40
Wirtshafter, D., & Stratford, T. R. (2010) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2010.06.004 · Cited by 40
“…example, injections of both of these compounds into the nucleus accumbenshave beenproposed to increase “wanting”of food (Reynolds and Berridge, 2002; Wybell and Berridge, 2000), but to have explanatory value, such aproposalwould have to explainwhy increased “wanting” is associated with increased…”
BackgroundEngelhardt, K.-A., Fuchs, E., Schwarting, R. K. W., & Wöhr, M. (2017) · European Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.euroneuro.2017.01.003 · Cited by 40
“…of evidence suggest that these reward components are dissociable and amphetamine may thus specifically enhance wanting for social contact independently of liking, as has been shown for other domains, such as food rewards (Gerdjikov et al., 2011; Wan and Peoples, 2008; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
Dopamine promotes instrumental motivation, but reduces reward-related vigour
Grogan, J. P., Sandhu, T., Hu, M. T., & Manohar, S. (2020) · eLife · doi:10.7554/elife.58321 · Cited by 38
Dill, B., & Holton, R. (2014) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2014.00139 · Cited by 40
Neuronal Nicotinic Acetylcholine Receptor Modulators Reduce Sugar Intake
Shariff, M. R., Quik, M., Holgate, J. Y., Morgan, M., Patkar, O. L., Tam, V., Belmer, A., & Bartlett, S. E. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0150270 · Cited by 40
Novel pharmacotherapeutic targets for the management of drug addiction
Heidbreder, C. A. (2005) · European Journal of Pharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.ejphar.2005.09.038 · Cited by 38
Hellemans, K. G. C., Dickinson, A., & Everitt, B. J. (2006) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/0735-7044.120.1.103 · Cited by 38
The involvement of accumbal glycine receptors in the dopamine-elevating effects of addictive drugs
Jönsson, S., Adermark, L., Ericson, M., & Söderpalm, B. (2014) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2014.03.010 · Cited by 38
Extraversion and reward-related processing: Probing incentive motivation in affective priming tasks.
Robinson, M. D., Moeller, S. K., & Ode, S. B. (2010) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0019173 · Cited by 37
Food Reward and Food Choice. An Inquiry Through The Liking and Wanting Model
Recio-Román, A., Recio-Menéndez, M., & Román-González, M. V. (2020) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu12030639 · Cited by 45
“Nevertheless, the incentive salience theory [87] established that wanting would be a stronger predictor of food consumption than liking.”
BackgroundEffect of limiting snack food variety across days on hedonics and consumption
Raynor, H. A., & Wing, R. R. (2006) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2005.12.001 · Cited by 37
From neuroscience to public policy: A new economic view of addiction
Bernheim, B. D., & Rangel, A. (2005) · Cited by 36
Robles, C. F., & Johnson, A. W. (2016) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2016.10.043 · Cited by 36
“, via agonism, [7]; or transgenic overexpression, [8]) for hedonic reactions, and thus further question the plausibility of the hedonia hypothesis of DA function [4,5].”
BackgroundMuschamp, J. W., & Siviy, S. M. (2002) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/s0091-3057(02)00910-3 · Cited by 37
“This amplified behavioral response is 98 thought to accompany neuroplastic changes in those nuclei 99 believed to elaborate feelings of craving or drug ‘‘wanting’’ 100 (Robinson and Kolb, 1997; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundHow the Brain Wants What the Body Needs: The Neural Basis of Positive Alliesthesia
Avery, J. A., Burrows, K., Kerr, K. L., Bodurka, J., Khalsa, S. S., Paulus, M. P., & Simmons, W. K. (2017) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2016.128 · Cited by 35
“The ventral striatum and ventral pallidum then use this information to mark stimuli capable of returning the body to homeostasis with greater motivational salience (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) and hedonic reward (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2015; Smith et al, 2009).”
BackgroundJacobs, E. H., Vries, T. J. D., Smit, A. B., & Schoffelmeer, A. N. M. (2003) · The FASEB Journal · doi:10.1096/fj.03-0317fje · Cited by 35
“Moreover, because local administration of amphetamine in the NAc shell was shown to potentiate cue-induced incentive motivation for reward, the shell may play a pivotal role in stimulus-induced relapse during abstinence (14).”
BackgroundThe roles of the amygdala in the affective regulation of body, brain, and behaviour
Mirolli, M., Mannella, F., & Baldassarre, G. (2010) · Connection Science · doi:10.1080/09540091003682553 · Cited by 36
“Second, projections to neuromodulatory systems (e.g. VTA and SNpc for DA, reached by BLA through LH and PPT; McDonald 1998; Pitkänen et al. 2000) allow CSs to act as second-order reinforcements by producing the activity bursts that are supposed to drive learning.”
BackgroundInfluentialShin, R. S., Cao, J., Webb, S. M., & Ikemoto, S. (2010) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0008741 · Cited by 35
“Thus, while it was thought that psychomotor stimulant administration enhances action associated with conditioned distal stimuli, which has acquired the motivational properties of primary rewards such as nutrients or drug rewards [1,3,6,12], our findings suggest that psychomotor stimulants also play a key role in stimu…”
BackgroundCalaminus, C., & Hauber, W. (2006) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0532-y · Cited by 34
“For instance, intra-AcbC amphetamine enhanced (Wyvell and Berridge 2000) PIT, while systemic DA receptor blockade (Dickinson et al. 2000) and transient inactivation of the VTA, the origin of the major DA input to the Acb, abolished PIT (Murschall and Hauber 2005).”
BackgroundSchalbetter, S. M., Mueller, F. S., Scarborough, J., Richetto, J., Weber‐Stadlbauer, U., Meyer, U., & Notter, T. (2021) · Lab Animal · doi:10.1038/s41684-021-00723-0 · Cited by 34
Lyons, D. N., Kniffin, T. C., Zhang, L., Danaher, R. J., Miller, C. S., Bocanegra, J. L., Carlson, C. R., & Westlund, K. N. (2015) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2015.03.051 · Cited by 33
“Likewise, the sucrose consumption test would be another measure of depression in the mice with TIC injury as well as indication of their reward-seeking behavior (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000, Wang et al., 2012).”
BackgroundUslaner, J. M., Winrow, C. J., Gotter, A. L., Roecker, A. J., Coleman, P. J., Hutson, P. H., Lê, A. D., & Renger, J. J. (2014) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2014.04.012 · Cited by 35
The effect of exposure to drugs on the processing of natural rewards
Anselme, P. (2008) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2008.10.002 · Cited by 35
“Such unusual interpretations are supported by a series of empirical findings that revealed the appearance of incentive salience and hedonic reactions for stimuli independently of any subjective awareness (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Berridge and Winkielman, 2003; Berridge, 2004; Winkielman et al., 2005).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialBecker, S., Čeko, M., Louis-Foster, M., Elfassy, N. M., Leyton, M., Shir, Y., & Schweinhardt, P. (2013) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0080766 · Cited by 33
“In reward processing, dopamine is crucial for incentive salience and thereby the motivation to obtain reward [82,83] (see 84 for review).”
BackgroundSaddoris, M. P., & Carelli, R. M. (2013) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2013.07.037 · Cited by 33
Effects of nucleus accumbens amphetamine administration on performance in a delay discounting task
Orsini, C. A., Mitchell, M. R., Heshmati, S. C., Shimp, K. G., Spurrell, M. S., Bizon, J. L., & Setlow, B. (2017) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2017.01.001 · Cited by 32
“This manipulation has been shown to ncrease incentive salience attributed to reward cues [8] in a maner similar to that produced by chronic cocaine administration [15].”
InfluentialThe Periaqueductal Gray and Its Extended Participation in Drug Addiction Phenomena
Vázquez-León, P., Miranda-Páez, A., Chávez‐Reyes, J., Allende, G., Barragán‐Iglesias, P., & Marichal‐Cancino, B. A. (2021) · Neuroscience Bulletin · doi:10.1007/s12264-021-00756-y · Cited by 36
“The NAc shell increases the operant response to a reward-associated cue [106], participates in the expression of appetitive-type”
BackgroundNewman, S. M., Pascal, L., Sadeghian, K., & Baldo, B. A. (2013) · Biological Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.biopsych.2012.11.027 · Cited by 33
“These effects are dopamine-independent (35), as are other Acblocalized, μ-opioid-mediated processes such as the enhancement of hedonic taste reactivity (30,36,37).”
BackgroundByrne, J. E. M., & Murray, G. (2017) · Chronobiology International · doi:10.1080/07420528.2016.1272607 · Cited by 36
Darwinian Hedonism and the Epidemic of Unhealthy Behavior
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047 · Cited by 33
Byrne, J. E. M., Tremain, H., Leitan, N., Keating, C., Johnson, S. L., & Murray, G. (2019) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/j.neubiorev.2019.01.025 · Cited by 32
“While the distinctions are not absolute, mesolimbic dopaminergic circuits are considered primary substrates of the former (Berridge, 2007; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), while opioid and endocannabinoid systems are more strongly implicated in the latter (Peciña and Berridge, 2005, 2013; see Castro and Berridge, 2014b for…”
Ferrario, C. R. (2020) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2020.113114 · Cited by 30
“For example, increased dopamine transmission within the NAc enhances the expression of single outcome PIT and conditioned approach, whereas disruption of dopamine transmission prevents the expression of these behaviors [[66], [67], [97], [106]].”
BackgroundDecision Utility, Incentive Salience, and Cue-Triggered “Wanting”
Berridge, K. C., & Aldridge, J. W. (2008) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780195309980.003.0024 · Cited by 33
Self-citationAlves, F. D. S., Schmitz, N., Figee, M., Abeling, N. G. G. M., Hasler, G., van der Meer, J. N., Nederveen, A. J., de Haan, L., LINSZEN, D. H., & van Amelsvoort, T. (2010) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881110367731 · Cited by 32
“Several studies investigating the neural substrates of reward stimuli have shown significant involvement of the dopaminergic (DAergic) mesocorticolimbic system in the attribution of salience, motivational behaviours and emotional processing (Kelley and Berridge, 2002; Wise and Rompre, 1989; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundCardinal, R. N., Robbins, T. W., & Everitt, B. J. (2003) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-008044056-9/50048-8 · Cited by 31
“As emphasized by Gjelsvik (this volume), cue-induced motivation (PIT) may have great significance for addiction (with potential roles in acquisition, maintenance, and cueinduced relapse; see e.g. Tiffany and Drobes 1990; Gawin 1991; O'Brien et al. 1998) as it represents a mechanism by which uncontrolled (noncontingent…”
BackgroundInfluentialBarrus, M. M., Cherkasova, M. V., & Winstanley, C. A. (2015) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2015_393 · Cited by 30
Food consumption and weight gain after cessation of chronic amphetamine administration
Orsini, C. A., Ginton, G., Shimp, K. G., Avena, N. M., Gold, M. S., & Setlow, B. (2014) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2014.03.013 · Cited by 30
“Such pairings of amphetamine with the contextual cues of the home cage could have led to the home cage context acquiring heightened incentive salience [50].”
BackgroundThe antagonism of ghrelin alters the appetitive response to learned cues associated with food.
Dailey, M. J., Moran, T., Holland, P., & Johnson, A. W. (2016) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2016.01.040 · Cited by 35
Targeted intervention: Computational approaches to elucidate and predict relapse in alcoholism
Heinz, A., Deserno, L., Zimmermann, U. S., Smolka, M. N., Beck, A., & Schlagenhauf, F. (2016) · NeuroImage · doi:10.1016/j.neuroimage.2016.07.055 · Cited by 29
“, 2005), that dopamine in the accumbens increases PIT effects (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000) and that ethanol-associated cues can drive (instrumental) ethanol-seeking behavior (Corbit and Janak, 2007).”
BackgroundCalcium deprivation increases the palatability of calcium solutions in rats
McCaughey, S. A., Forestell, C. A., & Tordoff, M. G. (2005) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2004.12.010 · Cited by 30
Farvolden, P., Kennedy, S. H., & Lam, R. W. M. (2003) · Expert Opinion on Investigational Drugs · doi:10.1517/13543784.12.1.65 · Cited by 33
Stevenson, R. J., Francis, H. M., Attuquayefio, T., & Ockert, C. (2017) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2017.10.007 · Cited by 29
The influence of reward sensitivity, heart rate dynamics and EEG-delta activity on placebo analgesia
Pascalis, V. D., & Scacchia, P. (2018) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2018.11.014 · Cited by 29
“Whereas the “liking” component is associated with striatal opioids [61], “wanting” seems to be related to dopaminergic neurotransmission in the ventral striatum [62].”
BackgroundDerman, R. C., Bass, C. E., & Ferrario, C. R. (2020) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-020-05453-8 · Cited by 28
Cocaine-induced reinstatement in rats: evidence for a critical role of cocaine stimulus properties
Keiflin, R., Isingrini, E., & Cador, M. (2008) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1083-1 · Cited by 28
“Psychostimulant drugs have also been shown to enhance the motivational impact of both drug-related stimuli (Goddard and Leri 2006) and foodrelated stimuli (Cador et al. 1991; Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
Background‘Wanting’ and ‘liking’ skin picking: A validation of the Skin Picking Reward Scale
Snorrason, Í., Ólafsson, R. P., Houghton, D. C., Woods, D. W., & Lee, H. (2015) · Journal of Behavioral Addictions · doi:10.1556/2006.4.2015.033 · Cited by 30
“First, it was expected that greater ‘ wanting ’ would lead to a greater seeking of the Secondly, research has shown that cues attributed with incentive salience trigger peaks of ‘ wanting ’ (e.g., Wyvell & Berridge, 2000) – or sudden urges for the reward.”
BackgroundVollbrecht, P. J., Mabrouk, O. S., Nelson, A. D., Kennedy, R. T., & Ferrario, C. R. (2016) · Obesity · doi:10.1002/oby.21411 · Cited by 29
“associated stimuli in the environment (5,6).”
Selective deficits in appetitive conditioning as a consequence of ethanol withdrawal
Ripley, T. L., Borlikova, G. G., Lyons, S., & Stephens, D. N. (2004) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/j.0953-816x.2003.03114.x · Cited by 28
Ito, R., & Canseliet, M. (2010) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/npp.2010.14 · Cited by 28
“…of a novel instrumental responding for response-contingent conditioned reinforcers (Taylor and Robbins, 1984; Taylor and Horger, 1999), and response non-contingent food cues (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), highlighting the importance of elevated mesolimbic dopamine in mediating these effects.”
Foley, K. A., Fudge, M. A., Kavaliers, M., & Ossenkopp, K. (2005) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2005.08.015 · Cited by 28
Ode, S. B., Winters, P. L., & Robinson, M. D. (2011) · Emotion · doi:10.1037/a0025186 · Cited by 30
“Dopamine agonists such as amphetamine facilitate the motoric pursuit of desired foods (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000), whereas dopamine antagonists (i.e., chemicals blocking dopamine’s functions) impair such pursuit (Wise, 2004).”
Background
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
