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 701–763 of 763
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.022
Darwinian Hedonism and Political Will
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.029
Darwinian Hedonism and Hedonic Desire for Calorie-Dense Foods
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.024
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.001
Conclusions and Future Directions
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.030
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.002
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.033
(2016) · Wiley eBooks · doi:10.1002/9781118972519.refs
The Epidemic of Unhealthy Behavior
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.003
Darwinian Hedonism and Hedonic Desire for Smoking, Drinking, and Drug Use
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.026
Levels of Analysis and Etiology
(2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.014
Anticipating Criticisms of Darwinian Hedonism
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.032
Ongoing and Future Research Directions
(2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.030
Darwinian Hedonism and Health-Behavior Policy
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.028
Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.002
Srivastava, A. B., & Gold, M. S. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.033
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.019
Hedonic Motivation and Other Motivation Concepts
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.031 · Cited by 1
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.006
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.014
Darwinian Hedonism and Unhealthy Behavior
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.023
The Evolutionary Function of Psychological Hedonism
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.020 · Cited by 1
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.011
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.005
Kozlowski, D. (2017) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-28099-8_544-1
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Affective valence in the brain: modules or modes?
Schoenbaum, G. M., & Costa, K. M. (2019) · Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · doi:10.3410/f.735001483.793560814
Frank, G. (2019) · Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · doi:10.3410/f.725600541.793558805
Williams, D. M. (2019) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781316275047.034
Kognitiv-affektive Neurowissenschaft: Emotionale Modulation des Erinnerns, Entscheidens und Handelns
Goschke, T., & Dreisbach, G. (2006) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-28511-3_5
Sussman, S. Y. (2020) · Cambridge University Press eBooks · doi:10.1017/9781108632591.042
Goheen, K. (2018) · Carleton University's Institutional Repository (MacOdrum Library, Carleton University) · doi:10.22215/etd/2018-13451
Huys, Q. J. M., Cools, R., Gölzer, M., Friedel, E., Heinz, A., Dolan, R. J., & Dayan, P. (2014) · PLoS Computational Biology · doi:10.1371/annotation/37bcc34c-7789-4c64-a3cf-902e619f5526
Faculty Opinions recommendation of Dopamine modulates the reward experiences elicited by music.
Berridge, K. C. (2019) · Faculty Opinions – Post-Publication Peer Review of the Biomedical Literature · doi:10.3410/f.734910050.793555987
Self-citationMotivation incitatrice : un aperçu historique des enjeux théoriques
Anselme, P. (2022) · L’Année psychologique · doi:10.3917/anpsy1.222.0339
Moore, H. (2022) · Queensland University of Technology · doi:10.5204/thesis.eprints.235040
Leung, B. K., Merlin, S., Walker, A. K., Lawther, A. J., Paxinos, G., Eapen, V., Clarke, R. A., Balleine, B. W., & Furlong, T. M. (2023) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.1101/2023.02.12.528225
“…d-amphetamine, and infusions of d-amphetamine into the NA (but not dorsal striatum) increases locomotion (Parkinson et al., 1999; Staton & Solomon, 1984) as well as cue-driven lever responses (Wyvell & Berridge, 2000), which further suggest that the NA is a likely site of actions for our effects.”
BackgroundImplicit Measures of Food “Wanting”
Cereghetti, D. M., Cayeux, I., Delplanque, S., & Ohla, K. (2023) · Methods and protocols in food science · doi:10.1007/978-1-0716-3000-6_9 · Cited by 2
Morey, E. R. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-030-22767-8_1148
From Aristotelian to Modern Happiness: Eudaimonia to Hedonic Hotspots
Morey, E. R. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36712-0_5
Common Quirks, Incorrect Beliefs, and Flawed Choosing
Morey, E. R. (2023) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-36712-0_8
Campbell, M. G., Green, I., Pinto, S. R., & Uchida, N. (2024) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-820480-1.00131-5
The Neuroscience of Food ‘Wanting’ and ‘Liking’
Warlow, S. M. (2024) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780190671051.003.0027
Role of dopamine in adaptively tuning motivational bias to the current environment
Cools, R., den Ouden, H. E. M., & Hartstra, E. (2025) · Handbook of behavioral neuroscience · doi:10.1016/b978-0-443-29867-7.00033-5
Leitch, M., Simkus, J., & Geliebter, A. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/med/9780197688908.003.0005
Dissociation of explicit wanting and liking for thirst
Stevenson, R. J., Francis, H., Saluja, S., Wylie, F., & Martin‐Rivera, D. (2025) · Motivation and Emotion · doi:10.1007/s11031-025-10180-8
Phasic dopamine encodes persistent attraction to reward cuesPreprint
Townsend, E. S., Garrod, D., & Smith, K. S. (2025) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2025.12.09.693300
Richard, J. M. (2012) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
The Role of Dopamine in Resistance to Change of Operant Behavior
Quick, S. L. (2021) · Digital Commons - USU (Utah State University) · doi:10.26076/64c5-a6f4
Bartlett, M. E., Furlong, P. M., Stewart, T. C., Orchard, J., & Jackson, M. G. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.01.07.698166
Détection des nutriments et contrôle central de la prise alimentaire
Delaere, F. (2009) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/2e9fa6a2z6f59z4d47zaabbz04010b09ce15
Marin, M. D. C. G. (2012) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/95b129bbz91cdz4c63zbd7dz07f9fc210c7a
Savva, A., Gerlicher, A. M. V., Rey, L., Guitart‐Masip, M., Ghaderi, A., Bulik, C. M., & Seubert, J. (2026) · Appetite · doi:10.1016/j.appet.2026.108557
Role of the endocannabinoid system in exercise motivation
Redon, B. (2021) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/844c9d99zd3c6z4550z97a6zebab239b226c
Goutaudier, R. (2022) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/6619b466z54bfz41e3z8a90zf0967825d579
Contribution of the rat insular cortex to stimulus-guided action
Tensaouti, Y. (2024) · theses.fr (ABES) · doi:10.70675/857ca5a2ze261z4e9bzb88dz744191d18105
Hoang, I. B., Munier, J. J., Verghese, A., Taira, M., Abiero, A., Leake, J., Dawson, A., Wilcher, M. V. B., Ganesan, K., Ortega, M. E., et al. (2026) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/j.neuron.2026.05.008
Cifuentes, J., Arias-Higuera, M., Acevedo-Triana, C., Hylin, M. J., Pozzo‐Miller, L. D., & Hurtado‐Parrado, C. (2026) · BMC Neuroscience · doi:10.1186/s12868-026-01018-1 · Cited by 1
“For instance, increments in dopamine levels enhance stimulus–reward associations, which in turn predict perseverative cue-induced food-seeking behavior and relapse of extin-guished behavior in rats [103].”
The Dorsomedial Prefrontal Cortex Uses Reward Predictions to Regulate How Rewards Are PursuedPreprint
Halbout, B., Hutson, C., Ramiah, N., Arias, G., Naik, N., Wassum, K. M., & Ostlund, S. B. (2026) · bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · doi:10.64898/2026.08.29.748037
“…accumbens is known to mediate the excitatory effects of reward-paired cues on instrumental performance (Corbit and Balleine, 2015), with local dopamine transmission in this structure playing a key role (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Lex and Hauber, 2008; Wassum et al., 2013; Halbout et al., 2019).”
Mechanistic Evaluation of Affective Dimensions of Pain in Rats
Okun, A. (2012) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona)
Mahler, S. M. (2009) · Deep Blue (University of Michigan)
Reward-related Neuroadaptations Induced by Food Restriction
Carr, K. D. (2010) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-12-374387-9.00006-4
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
