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 501–600 of 763
Depue, R. A., & Lenzenweger, M. F. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9780470939390.ch20 · Cited by 12
Behavioral therapies targeting reward mechanisms in substance use disorders
Wardle, M. C., Webber, H. E., Yoon, J. H., Heads, A. M. B., Stotts, A. L., Lane, S. D., & Schmitz, J. M. (2024) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2024.173787 · Cited by 10
Effects of sensitization on the detection of an instrumental contingency
Phillips, G. D., & Vugler, A. (2011) · Pharmacology Biochemistry and Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.pbb.2011.07.009 · Cited by 10
“…governed by appetitive conditioned reinforcers is increased by intra-accumbens d-amphetamine (Taylor and Robbins, 1984; Taylor and Robbins, 1986; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000), and may also be facilitated at a later date following repeated exposure to d-amphetamine (Wyvell and Berridge, 2001) or…”
Geier, C. F., Sweitzer, M. M., Denlinger, R. L., Sparacino, G., & Donny, E. C. (2014) · Psychiatry Research Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.pscychresns.2014.04.007 · Cited by 10
Hosking, J. G., & Winstanley, C. A. (2011) · Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.1037/a0024612 · Cited by 12
Cunningham, C. L., Bakner, L., Schuette, L. M., et al. (2020) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-020-05658-x · Cited by 10
“On the other hand, exogenous stimulation of opioid receptors (and the accompanying increase in mesolimbic dopamine transmission) might increase responding to the cue by enhancing its conditioned incentive salience (Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Robinson and Berridge 2003).”
InfluentialDevelopment of a behavioral task measuring reward “wanting” and “liking” in rats
WILSON, D., Laidlaw, A. H., BUTLER, E., HOFMANN, D., & BOWMAN, E. (2005) · Physiology & Behavior · doi:10.1016/j.physbeh.2005.09.016 · Cited by 10
Dayan, P. (2002) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/0471214426.pas0303 · Cited by 23
Engi, S. A., Beebe, E. J., Ayvazian, V. M., Cruz, F. C., Cheer, J. F., Wenzel, J. M., & Zlebnik, N. E. (2021) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2021.108625 · Cited by 8
Garceau, C., Samaha, A., Cordahi, T., Servonnet, A., & Khoo, S. Y. (2021) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-021-05907-7 · Cited by 9
Dissociation between wanting and liking for coffee in heavy drinkers
Koranyi, N., Brückner, E. K., Jäckel, A., Grigutsch, L. A., & Rothermund, K. (2020) · Journal of Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1177/0269881120922960 · Cited by 9
“Most of the empirical evidence for dissociations between wanting and liking as proposed by IST comes from animal research (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2008; Clark and Bernstein, 2006; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundControl of Fat Intake by Striatal Opioids
Baldo, B. A., Pratt, W. E., & Kelley, A. E. (2009) · Frontiers in neuroscience · doi:10.1201/9781420067767-c13 · Cited by 10
Balog, Z., Somlai, Z., & Kéri, S. (2012) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2012.08.020 · Cited by 11
Borkar, C. D., Bharne, A. P., Balasubramanian, N., Sakharkar, A. J., Subhedar, N. K., & Kokare, D. M. (2018) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2018.01.056 · Cited by 10
Shevrin, H. (2001) · Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association · doi:10.1177/00030651010490011901 · Cited by 9
“When, for example, a rat’s ‘wanting’ neural substrate is activated chemically, the animal will respond to a signal (a light or sound) previously associated with a sugar reward as if it were the reward itself (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundBalleine, B. W. (2004) · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195162851.003.0041 · Cited by 9
A novel hypothalamic-midbrain circuit for model-based learningPreprint
Hoang, I. B., Munier, J. J., Verghese, A., Greer, Z., Millard, S. J., DiFazio, L. E., Sercander, C., Izquierdo, A., & Sharpe, M. J. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.03.02.530856 · Cited by 8
Ge, M., & Balleine, B. W. (2022) · Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience · doi:10.3389/fnbeh.2022.968593 · Cited by 9
“, 2001) or local application of the D1 dopamine receptor antagonist SCH-23390 in NAc core on test abolishes general transfer (Lex and Hauber, 2008) whereas the DA agonist amphetamine enhances it (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundGerdjikov, T. V., Baker, T. W., & Beninger, R. J. (2010) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-010-2099-x · Cited by 8
“However, even though conditioned approach is enhanced by amphetamine (Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Wan and Peoples 2008), in the present study the CR response became less amphetamine-sensitive with repeated testing.”
BackgroundNucleus accumbens shell moderates preference bias during voluntary choice behavior
Jang, H., Jung, K., Jeong, J., Park, S. K., Kralik, J. D., & Jeong, J. (2017) · Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · doi:10.1093/scan/nsx072 · Cited by 8
“Moreover, as opposed to a general PIT effect in the NAc core region—in which previous stimulus-reward pairings with any reward type can enable a stimulus to enhance instrumental responding for a given re-ward—the PIT effect in the NAc shell appears to be specific— requiring the previous stimulus-reward pairing to incl…”
BackgroundThe incentive amplifying effects of nicotine: Roles in alcohol seeking and consumption
King, C. P., & Meyer, P. (2022) · Advances in pharmacology · doi:10.1016/bs.apha.2021.10.008 · Cited by 10
Recent Advances in the Pharmacotherapeutic Management of Drug Dependence and Addiction
Heidbreder, C. A. (2005) · Current Psychiatry Reviews · doi:10.2174/1573400052953538 · Cited by 8
“Second, the concept that the mesolimbic DA system simply encodes hedonic tone has been called into question.”
BackgroundDâ€TMAmour-Horvat, V., Cox, S. M. L., Dagher, A., Kolivakis, T., Jaworska, N., & Leyton, M. (2021) · Addiction Biology · doi:10.1111/adb.13094 · Cited by 8
Guillem, K., & Peoples, L. L. (2011) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0024049 · Cited by 8
“[20,22,23,24,25].”
Constraint theory: A cognitive, motivational theory of dependence
Hammersley, R. (2013) · Addiction Research & Theory · doi:10.3109/16066359.2013.779678 · Cited by 7
“…(a) mood effects of drugs (b) engaging in previously reinforced behaviours and (c) the ‘incentive salience’ of the reinforcer; i.e. the person or animal’s tendency to attend to it, and think about it (Beckmann, Marusich, Gipson, & Bardo, 2011; Berridge & Robinson, 1998; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundLi, M., Liu, W.-J., Lu, B., Wang, Y., & Liu, J. (2013) · Acta Pharmacologica Sinica · doi:10.1038/aps.2013.28 · Cited by 7
Interpersonal Arrogance and the Incentive Salience of Power Versus Affiliation Cues
Fetterman, A. K., Robinson, M. D., & Ode, S. B. (2014) · European Journal of Personality · doi:10.1002/per.1977 · Cited by 7
Clinical evaluation of the on-line Sensicath blood gas monitoring system.
Myklejord, D. J., PRITZKER, M. R., Nicoloff, D. M., Emery, A. M., & Emery, R. W. (1998) · PubMed · Cited by 7
Obesity and chronic leptin resistance foster insulin resistance
Dey, S., Murmu, N., Böse, M., Ghosh, S., & Giri, B. (2021) · BLDE University Journal of Health Sciences · doi:10.4103/bjhs.bjhs_29_20 · Cited by 9
“[164,165] The CB1 receptor overexpression hindered leptin and insulin signaling, whereas blockage of the receptor sensitized the resistance.”
Lesions of nucleus accumbens shell abolish socially transmitted food preferences
Noguer‐Calabús, I., Schäble, S., & Kalenscher, T. (2022) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.15827 · Cited by 6
“Several studies have provided evidence supporting their hypothesis (Peciña & Berridge, 2013; Saddoris et al., 2015, 2017; Salamone et al., 1994, 2003; Sclafani et al., 2011; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
Is impulsive violence an addiction? The Habit Hypothesis
Stahl, S. M. (2015) · CNS Spectrums · doi:10.1017/s1092852915000292 · Cited by 8
“If this behavior is repeated, over time the reward of the stimulus will be devalued, such that the stimulus itself is enough to drive behavior, regardless of the outcome.(14,16) This type of behavior is called stimulusdirected behavior or stimulus-response learning (Pavlovian conditioning).”
BackgroundInfluentialKhoo, S. Y., Uhrig, A., Samaha, A., & Chaudhri, N. (2021) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2021.113238 · Cited by 5
“zation to amphetamine augmented CS lever activations (Wyvell and Berridge, 2001), and augmentation may be achieved with a single amphetamine injection (Schuweiler et al., 2018; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundThe Dopamine System in Mediating Alcohol Effects in Humans
Beck, A., Ebrahimi, C., Rosenthal, A., Charlet, K., & Heinz, A. (2023) · Current topics in behavioral neurosciences · doi:10.1007/7854_2022_415 · Cited by 9
Kognitiv-affektive Neurowissenschaft: Emotionale Modulation des Erinnerns, Entscheidens und Handelns
Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2011) · Springer-Lehrbuch · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-13018-2_6 · Cited by 7
Mapping the Unconscious in the Brain
(2007) · Psychiatric Annals · doi:10.3928/00485713-20070401-07 · Cited by 6
Carter, S. (2003) · European Journal of Psychotherapy & Counselling · doi:10.1080/0967026042000269683 · Cited by 6
“Berridge cites evidence demonstrating that it is possible to be very motivated to gain something without feeling much pleasure from it and, contrariwise, to greatly enjoy something that does not motivate us much (Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Berridge and Robinson 2003).”
BackgroundBehavioral separation of liking and wanting in response to olfactory and visual food cues
Savva, A., Dijkman, R., Bulik, C. M., & Seubert, J. (2024) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2024.107717 · Cited by 5
“However, research has shown that they are driven by functionally distinct neurobiological processes with complementary roles in the regulation of eating (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2015; Peci ˜ na et al., 2003; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundMotivación: un recorrido histórico y teórico de los principales marcos conceptuales
Serafini, M., & Cuenya, L. (2020) · Revista Iberoamericana ConCiencia. · doi:10.32654/concienciaepg.5-2.2 · Cited by 5
Chohan, M. O., Fein, H., Mirro, S., O’Reilly, K. C., & Veenstra-VanderWeele, J. M. (2023) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-023-06448-x · Cited by 6
“…amplitude, and duration of phasic DA release (Daberkow et al. 2013) and can improve learning and goal-directed behaviors (Taylor and Jentsch 2001; Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Zhang et al. 2003) that are known to critically rely on phasic DA signaling (Tsai et al. 2009; Zweifel et al. 2009).”
BackgroundLi, Y., Huang, Y., Chen, J. J., Hyland, B. I., & Wickens, J. R. (2024) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.16269 · Cited by 5
“…dose effect of methylphenidate on phasic dopamine responses to sensory cues previously paired with reward would be expected to increase their salience (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000), and their efficacy as conditioned rein-forcers (Robbins, 1975, 1978) and thus their control of behaviour (Bindra, 1974).”
BackgroundDevaluing memories of reward: a case for dopamine
Fry, B. R., Russell, N., Fex, V., Mo, B., Pence, N., Beatty, J. A., Manfredsson, F. P., Toth, B. A., Burgess, C. R., Gershman, S. J., et al. (2025) · Communications Biology · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-07440-7 · Cited by 5
LikeWant: A new methodology to measure implicit wanting for flavors and fragrances
Cereghetti, D. M., Chillà, C., Porcherot, C., Sander, D., Cayeux, I., & Delplanque, S. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103829 · Cited by 5
Qualitative Approaches to the Study of Substance and Behavioral Addictions
Simpson, K. A., & Bluthenthal, R. N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.013 · Cited by 10
Munk, A. J. L., Wielpuetz, C., Osinsky, R., Müller, E. M., Grant, P. S., & Hennig, J. (2016) · Neuropsychobiology · doi:10.1159/000441658 · Cited by 5
Measuring wanting without asking: The Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer paradigm under test
Chillà, C., Cereghetti, D. M., Cayeux, I., Porcherot, C., Delplanque, S., & Sander, D. (2019) · Food Quality and Preference · doi:10.1016/j.foodqual.2019.103720 · Cited by 5
“…to overcome the issue of the measurement of the consumer’s motivation in the IST framework, a promising method is the Pavlovian-to-instrumental transfer (PIT) task, which has largely been used in animal studies (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000) and in the last decade, adapted for human research as well.”
MethodCan the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction incorporate addiction to opioid drugs?
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2026) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-025-07001-8 · Cited by 6
“Thus, for example, NAc dopamine stimulation in naïve rats caused by amphetamine microinjections in medial shell can facilitate cue-triggered ‘wanting’ for unrelated food rewards in rats (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
Self-citationDopamine Supports Reward Prediction to Shape Reward-Pursuit Strategy
Malvaez, M., Suarez, A., Griffin, N. K., Ramírez-Armenta, K., Ostlund, S. B., & Wassum, K. M. (2026) · Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1523/jneurosci.1636-25.2026 · Cited by 7
Sommer, S., & Hauber, W. (2015) · Brain Structure and Function · doi:10.1007/s00429-015-1170-0 · Cited by 4
“Considerable evidence points to a key role for DA neuron activity in mediating PIT (Dickinson et al. 2000; Wassum et al. 2011; Wyvell and Berridge 2000; Lex and Hauber 2008) and the expression of conditioned approach, at least in response to auditory stimuli (Wassum et al. 2011; Saunders and…”
BackgroundThe Theory of Hedonic Motivation
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.017 · Cited by 3
Neural representation and modulation of volitional motivation in response to escalating efforts
Zhang, L., Liu, C., Zhou, X., Zhou, H., Luo, S., Wang, Q., Yao, Z., & Chen, J. (2022) · The Journal of Physiology · doi:10.1113/jp283915 · Cited by 4
“Furthermore, according to the incentive salience hypothesis, a reward cue triggers ‘wanting’ and potentiates instrumental performance for that reward (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundMedial nucleus accumbens dopamine receptors modulate motivation for wheel running in male mice
Nishitani, N., Kokume, T., Taniguchi, H., & Kaneda, K. (2025) · Neuropsychopharmacology · doi:10.1038/s41386-025-02136-w · Cited by 5
“Given that increases in NAc dopamine levels are known to promote food-and cocaine-seeking behaviors [81, 86], these transient surges in mNAc dopamine likely play a modulatory role in appetitive component of motivated wheel running behavior.”
Substance and Behavioral Addictions Assessment Instruments
Grigsby, T. J. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.012 · Cited by 6
Prevention and Treatment of Sex Addiction
Reid, R. C., Grubbs, J. B., & Kraus, S. W. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.025 · Cited by 4
Garceau, C., Marsault, J., Robinson, M. J. F., & Samaha, A. (2022) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-022-06101-z · Cited by 5
“2016; Rescorla & Solomon 1967; Walker 1942; Wyvell & Berridge 2000).”
BackgroundAesthetic Disinterestedness in Neuroaesthetics: A Phenomenological Critique
Vassiliou, F. (2020) · Aesthetic Investigations · doi:10.58519/aesthinv.v4i1.11926 · Cited by 4
A multidimensional neurobehavioral model of personality disorders
Depue, R. A. (2009) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511642197.025 · Cited by 3
Badanich, K. A., & Kirstein, C. L. (2012) · Brain Sciences · doi:10.3390/brainsci2040573 · Cited by 4
Approach and avoidance personality traits in acute pain and placebo analgesia
Vecchio, A., & Pascalis, V. D. (2020) · Personality and Individual Differences · doi:10.1016/j.paid.2020.109830 · Cited by 5
Status of the ITER ICRF system design—‘Externally Matched’ approach
Lamalle, P., Shannon, M., Borthwick, A., Brons, S., Chuilon, B., Dumortier, P., Durodié, F., Evrard, M. P., Goulding, R. H., Louche, F., et al. (2007) · AIP conference proceedings · doi:10.1063/1.2800466 · Cited by 4
Lusher, J. M., Chandler, C., & Ball, D. (2009) · The Open Addiction Journal · doi:10.2174/1874941000902010006 · Cited by 4
Explicit and Implicit Approach Motivation Interact to Predict Interpersonal Arrogance
Robinson, M. D., Ode, S. B., Palder, S. L., & Fetterman, A. K. (2012) · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin · doi:10.1177/0146167212437792 · Cited by 4
“Probably not, but Wyvell and Berridge (2000) provided data consistent with the idea that incentives activate brain regions responsible for approach movements as well as perceptions.”
BackgroundInfluentialThe Influence of Pain on Reward Processing: Current Literature and Prospects
Gandhi, W., Becker, S., & Schweinhardt, P. (2014) · Contemporary clinical neuroscience · doi:10.1007/978-1-4939-1856-0_3 · Cited by 4
Ventromedial prefrontal cortex is involved in preference and hedonic evaluation of tastes
Berta, B., Kertes, E., Péczely, L., Ollmann, T., László, K., Gálosi, R., Kállai, V., Petykó, Z., Zagorácz, O., Kovács, A., et al. (2019) · Behavioural Brain Research · doi:10.1016/j.bbr.2019.03.051 · Cited by 4
“Namely, intra-accumbens amphetamine shifts the palatability also in the negative direction, it produces a dose-dependent suppression of sucrose-quinine mixture elicited hedonic reaction patterns, whereas aversive taste reactions are increased [60].”
The Ventral Pallidum as a Limbic Pleasure Generator.
Ho, C. (2010) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 4
Han, C. (2021) · Mind Brain and Education · doi:10.1111/mbe.12299 · Cited by 3
Gaming Disorder and Its Treatment
Griffiths, M. D., Kuss, D. J., & Pontes, H. M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.029 · Cited by 6
LeCocq, M. R., Najafipashaki, S., Casale, D., Laplante, I., & Samaha, A. (2025) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-025-06764-4 · Cited by 4
“We propose that activation of mGlu 2/3 receptors suppressed the conditioned incentive salience of the DS+ , diminishing its ability to trigger the motivational state that enhances reward seeking (Wyvell and Berridge 2000).”
InfluentialThe Role of Culture in Addiction
Hoffman, B. R., & Unger, J. B. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.018 · Cited by 3
Toward a Unified Account of Rationality in Belief, Desire, and Action
Railton, P. (2010) · Cited by 3
Hailwood, J. M., Gilmour, G., Robbins, T. W., Saksida, L. M., Bussey, T. J., Marston, H. M., & Gastambide, F. (2018) · European Journal of Neuroscience · doi:10.1111/ejn.14150 · Cited by 3
Mecanismos motivacionales del Craving: ansia por el tabaco
García, M., & Ángel, M. (2011) · Cited by 3
Giertler, C. (2003) · OPUS Publication Server of the University of Stuttgart (University of Stuttgart) · doi:10.18419/opus-1613 · Cited by 3
“A recent study demonstrated that intra-ACB dopamine mediates the ability of reward related stimuli to trigger „wanting“ for the associated rewards independent of their hedonic impact (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
BackgroundDopamine Dysregulation Syndrome
O’Sullivan, S. S., & Lees, A. J. (2011) · Parkinson s Disease · doi:10.1002/9781444397970.ch19 · Cited by 3
The Intersection between Neurobiological and Psychological Theories of Substance Use Disorders
Baskin-sommers, A. R., & Hearon, B. A. (2015) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118726761.ch11 · Cited by 3
Dopaminergic encoding of future defensive actions in the mouse nucleus accumbens
Fisher, A. A., Gonzalez, L. S., Cappel, Z., Grover, K. E., Waclaw, R. R., & Robinson, J. E. (2025) · PNAS Nexus · doi:10.1093/pnasnexus/pgaf128 · Cited by 2
“Therefore, we hypothesize that NAcS dopamine controls the expression of innate defensive behavior by increasing motivational drive (27 – 30 ) rather than influencing the decision to escape, which occurs on a faster time-scale by superior colliculus (SC) inputs to the dPAG via a well-validated…”
Reward as a facet of word meaning: Ratings of motivation for 8,601 English words
Giurgea, D.-I., Pexman, P. M., & Binney, R. J. (2025) · Behavior Research Methods · doi:10.3758/s13428-025-02762-8 · Cited by 5
“Animal lesion studies suggest that liking and wanting can be selectively abolished (Berridge et al., 1989; Wyvell & Berridge, 2000), although both liking and wanting are necessary for full reward (Ber-ridge & Kringelbach, 2015).”
Preventing Binge Eating with Deep Brain Stimulation – Can Compulsive Eating be Switched Off?
Martire, S. I., Tran, D. M. D., & Reichelt, A. C. (2013) · Frontiers in Psychiatry · doi:10.3389/fpsyt.2013.00168 · Cited by 2
“Elevated extracellular NAc DA has no effect on hedonic responding for sucrose, but increased lever presses indicative of enhanced wanting (7), supporting the proposal that DA is important in the mediation of reward-related cues to trigger “wanting,” as opposed to the hedonic appraisal of foods.”
how food deprivation and reward expectancy change implicit and explicit food-liking and food-wanting
Würzburg, J.-M.-U., & Pereira, P. T. (2010) · Cited by 2
Quick, S. L., & Shahan, T. A. (2014) · Behavioural Pharmacology · doi:10.1097/fbp.0000000000000115 · Cited by 2
“Wyvell and Berridge (2000) found that intra-accumbal injections of D-amphetamine dose- dependently increased cue-induced responding.”
BackgroundLapointe, T., Francis, T., Doray, K., & Leri, F. (2023) · Neuropharmacology · doi:10.1016/j.neuropharm.2023.109572 · Cited by 2
Goal-Directed and Habitual Control in Human Drug Addiction
Lim, T. V., & Ersche, K. D. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-55889-4_11 · Cited by 2
Treatment of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Other Drug (ATOD) Misuse
Sussman, S. Y., & Bolshakova, M. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.022 · Cited by 3
Fareri, D. S., & Delgado, M. R. (2013) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/cbo9780511843716.024 · Cited by 2
Food Restriction and Reward in Rats
Carr, K. D., & de Vaca, S. C. (2012) · Neuromethods · doi:10.1007/978-1-62703-104-2_16 · Cited by 3
8.2 Dopaminergic Mechanisms in Drug-Seeking Habits and the Vulnerability to Drug Addiction
Everitt, B. J., Belin, D., Dalley, J. W., & Robbins, T. W. (2009) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195373035.003.0027 · Cited by 2
Theories of compulsive drug use: A brief overview of learning and motivation processes
Foreman, L. M., Baetu, I., Rego, J., Collins‐Praino, L. E., & Moustafa, A. A. (2020) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-816979-7.00007-8 · Cited by 3
Philosophical Issues in the Addictions
Glackin, S. N. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.007 · Cited by 2
(2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.020 · Cited by 2
Jackson, E. (2009) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan) · Cited by 2
Conditional and non-conditional reward- related responses to alcohol - nicotinic mechanisms
Löf, E. (2006) · Gothenburg University Publications Electronic Archive (Gothenburg University) · Cited by 2
Shelby, C. L. (2016) · Palgrave Macmillan UK eBooks · doi:10.1057/9781137552853_3 · Cited by 1
Bischoff, A. R., Molle, R. D., Mucellini, A. B., Pokhvisneva, I., Levitan, R. D., Meaney, M. J., & Silveira, P. P. (2023) · Stress · doi:10.1080/10253890.2023.2294954 · Cited by 1
“…of inges-tive behavior, extensively described by Berridge and collaborators in their reviews and original studies (Berridge, 2000, 2009a, 2009; Wyvell and Berridge, 2000). the microstructural analysis of taste reactivity is a very detailed inspection of the behavioral responsivity done by…”
Motivation as Neural Context for Adaptive Learning and Memory Formation
Poh, J.-H., & Adcock, R. A. (2025) · Annual Review of Psychology · doi:10.1146/annurev-psych-032525-031744 · Cited by 4
Exploring wanting and liking during positive human-animal interactions
Truong, S., Schmitt, O., Buisman‐Pijlman, F. T. A., Oczak, M., & Rault, J. (2026) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-026-07015-w · Cited by 1
Dopamine Bidirectionally Biases Incentive and Aversive Salience in Humans
Herrero, E. M., Ferreri, L., Ripollés, P., Valle, M., Riba, J., & Rodríguez‐Fornells, A. (2026) · Biological Psychiatry Cognitive Neuroscience and Neuroimaging · doi:10.1016/j.bpsc.2026.03.020 · Cited by 2
Yin, H. H., Ostlund, S. B., & Balleine, B. W. (2008) · Cited by 1
Passionate Love Addiction: An Evolutionary Survival Mechanism That Can Go Terribly Wrong
Bolshakova, M., Fisher, H. E., Aubin, H., & Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.026 · Cited by 2
Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.003 · Cited by 1
Ghrelin receptor antagonism and satiety attenuate Pavlovian-instrumental transfer
Pierce-Messick, Z. J., Brink, A. K., Vo, T. A., & Corbit, L. H. (2023) · Neurobiology of Learning and Memory · doi:10.1016/j.nlm.2023.107864 · Cited by 1
The Science and Moral Psychology of Addiction: A Case Study in Integrative Philosophy of Psychiatry
Gibson, Q. H. (2024) · Crítica (México D F En línea) · doi:10.22201/iifs.18704905e.2024.1530 · Cited by 1
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
