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.
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 effect of the CSϩ differed between the sucrose-associated and nonsucrose control levers”
§ 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
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
“there was no difference between the two levers in the magnitude of this enhancement”
§ 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
“Presentation of the CSϩ sucrose cue significantly increased lever pressing compared with responding 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 > 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.
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
“Moreover, this effect was only significant at the middle dose (10 g), which might suggest a general motor enhancement effect on this response as an alternative explanation to a systematic enhancement of aversive taste reactivity.”
§ 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.
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
“However, the magnitude of this general sensorimotor arousal increase was always small.”
§ 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
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
“The bittersweet sucrose-quinine solution evoked a mixture of hedonic and 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
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 did not alter responding on the nonsucrose control lever in the presence of the CSϩ”
§ 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.
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 percentage terms, presentation of the CSϩ cue caused the amphetamine-induced increase in sucrose lever pressing to jump to nearly 400% from its 100% no-cue baseline”
§ 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.
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 tone or clicker CSϩ triggered significantly greater pressing on the sucrose lever compared with pressing in the absence of the CSϩ or to pressing in the presence of the CSϪ”
§ 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
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
“When reanalyzed in a separate one-way ANOVA, amphetamine doses again reliably enhanced responding on the sucrose lever during the CSϩ presentations”
§ 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.
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
“but there was not a consistent increase in the overall pattern of aversive reactions.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
plain- 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
“In contrast, the druginduced enhancement of sucrose-specific responding observed during the sucrose cue was much larger (e.g., 400%).”
§ 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.
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
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine did not, however, increase responding on the control lever during presentation of the CSϩ sucrose cue”
§ 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
“Microinjection sites were found to be primarily restricted to the caudomedial shell of the nucleus accumbens in rats from both experiments.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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
“In any case, it was clear that amphetamine did not selectively enhance hedonic reaction patterns as would be expected if amphetamine increased 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
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.
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
“These results indicate that microinjection of amphetamine into the nucleus accumbens failed to enhance the hedonic palatability of the sucrose-quinine mixture.”
- Also stated in: § Histology · plain
“In summary, there was no enhancement of hedonic palatability produced by amphetamine microinjection.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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.
- Also stated in: § Histology · 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
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to enhance overall positive hedonic reactions compared with reactions elicited after vehicle microinjection.”
§ 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: 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 had no effect on sucrose lever pressing in the presence of the CSϪ”
§ 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.
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 pattern of affective reactions was distributed similarly over the various responses belonging to the positive hedonic category”
§ 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: 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
“During the presentation of a reward cue, however, the effect of amphetamine was dramatically different from the effect 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 > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
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
“Moreover, all three of these amphetamine doses enhanced sucrose cue-elicited instrumental responding for sucrose in experiment 1.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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
“However, during the CSϩ sucrose cue presence, that relation was reversed, and amphetamine microinjection produced a much greater percentage increase in pressing on the sucrose lever than on the control lever.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“The presence of the CSϩ sucrose cue selectively enhanced pressing on the sucrose lever, producing a cue-triggered redirection of potentiation of behavior to obtain sucrose reward.”
§ 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.
- 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
“Hedonic taste reactivity patterns elicited by sucrose-quinine were slightly shifted toward aversion, if changed at all, after amphetamine microinjection.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine marginally decreased hedonic reaction components elicited by the sucrose taste and slightly increased aversive reaction components elicited by the quinine taste.”
§ 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
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.
- 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
“These experiments demonstrate that amphetamine microinjection into the accumbens shell potentiates the ability of a Pavlovian sucrose cue to trigger increases in instrumental responding for sucrose reward, even in the absence of either primary response reinforcement by actual sucrose reward or of secondary response reinforcement by the sucrose cue.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine increased the ability of a sucrose cue to spur performance for sucrose reward, even under extinction conditions that precluded mediation by primary or secondary response reinforcement.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
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.
- 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
“Intra-accumbens amphetamine further potentiated the incentive impact of the auditory CSϩ, selectively enhancing sucrose lever pressing in the presence the CSϩ to Ͼ200% of vehicle levels”
§ 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
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
“When each behavioral component was analyzed separately, however, it was found that only aversive head shakes were significantly enhanced by amphetamine microinjection ( p Ͻ 0.01; 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
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
“For the CS random group, presentation of the CS random control cue did not modify the effect of amphetamine on pressing of either the sucrose-associated lever (one-way ANOVA with drug as factor; F (3,31) ϭ 1.084, p ϭ NS) or the nonsucrose control lever (one-way ANOVA with drug as factor; F (3,31) ϭ 0.270; p ϭ NS).”
§ 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
“amphetamine had no effect on sucrose-associated lever pressing in the absence of the CSs”
§ 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.
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
“Similarly, there was no evidence that amphetamine reduced the aversive impact of the quinine element.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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
“For the nonlocalized CS control group, amphetamine microinjection similarly magnified the ability of an auditory CSϩ to elicit increased instrumental performance for sucrose.”
§ 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
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
“were significantly enhanced by amphetamine microinjection ( p Ͻ 0.01; Friedman ANOVA) (Fig. 6).”
§ 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: 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
“Amphetamine specifically enhanced the ability of the CSϩ to increase pressing on the sucrose lever in a dose-response 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
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
“However, pressing on the sucrose lever was only slightly enhanced by amphetamine in the absence of the sucrose cue.”
§ 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
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“It is clear that dopamine modulates the effects of Pavlovian reward cues on motivated behavior.”
§ 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 Taylor and Robbins, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Robbins et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Kelley and Delfs, 1991
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.
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
“Intra-accumbens amphet-amine can therefore potentiate cue-triggered incentive motivation for reward in the absence of primary or secondary reinforcement.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“The CS random , therefore, served as a truly random control stimulus (i.e., there was no predictive relationship between light and sucrose for the control group) rather than a negative predictor or inhibitory stimulus”
§ 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
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Rescorla, 1967
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 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 CSϩ sucrose cue selectively triggered increased lever pressing that was directed toward obtaining sucrose.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“A pure conditioned incentive paradigm more selectively measures the role of dopamine in motivational 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”
§ 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 Rescorla and Solomon, 1967
- Not checked yetcites Toates, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Dickinson and Dawson, 1987
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.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The conditioned incentive paradigm therefore provides a relatively specific way to test the hypothesis that intraaccumbens amphetamine increases incentive salience attribution without being confounded by response reinforcement processes.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“microinjection of intra-accumbens amphetamine potentiates instrumental responding that is reinforced by a food cue”
§ 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 Taylor and Robbins, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Robbins et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Kelley and Delfs, 1991
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 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 inability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to enhance hedonic reactions to taste cannot be dismissed on the grounds that these drug doses were inappropriate; they have been shown repeatedly to produce rewarding effects, to enhance feeding, and to potentiate the incentive motivation for food reward in our pure conditioned incentive experiment.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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 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, amphetamine microinjection in this nonlocalized CS control group specifically enhanced the ability of a nonlocalized reward cue to trigger increased seeking for sucrose reward.”
§ 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
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“This suggests that amphetamine microinjection induced a modest increase in sensorimotor responsiveness, which is consistent with the hypothesis that mesolimbic dopamine is involved in sensorimotor and integrative functions involved in generating complex responses (Salamone, 1986;Salamone et al., 1997).”
§ 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
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Salamone, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Salamone et al., 1997
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.
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
“That pattern of affective reactions is the opposite of what would be expected if amphetamine enhanced the hedonic impact of sucrose reward.”
§ 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
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 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
“Therefore, this amphetamine-mediated enhancement of responding reflects a specific increase in the cuetriggered effort to obtain sucrose reward.”
§ 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.
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
“It is important to note that the failure of amphetamine to enhance taste hedonic impact in this experiment occurred across a range of drug doses that have been reported previously to have positive effects on incentive motivation and reward.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In other words, these doses of amphetamine have reward-or motivation-enhancing effects relevant to food incentives”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Sills and Vaccarino, 1996
- Not checked yetcites Carr and White, 1986
- Not checked yetcites Kelley and Delfs, 1991
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
“the middle dose (10 g) has been shown to produce a conditioned place preference (Carr and White, 1986)”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Carr and White, 1986
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 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
“but our observations indicate those reward-relevant effects do not extend to increasing the hedonic impact of a taste.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
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.
In the paper
“The lowest dose of intra-accumbens amphetamine (2 g) has been reported to enhance feeding (Sills and Vaccarino, 1996)”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
What the sources say
- 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.
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 reversibility of the cue-triggered increase in responding produced by amphetamine indicates that it required actual perception of the presence of the sucrose cue.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Reversible motivational state, not an enduring cognitive expectation of food
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.
In the paper
“the highest dose (20 g) has been reported to enhance responding in the conditioned reinforcement paradigm (Kelley and Delfs, 1991)”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Histology
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Kelley and Delfs, 1991
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, the DA-dependent system seems to be responsible specifically for enhancing the conditioned incentive impact of reward cues (Dickinson et al., 2000) (for discussion, see Berridge, 2000b).”
§ 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
- Not checked yetcites Berridge, 2000b
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.
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
“Our results cannot be explained by an amphetamine-induced enhancement of response reinforcement because the conditioned incentive paradigm precluded all reinforcement contingencies during the test.”
§ 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.
In the paper
“Indeed, preliminary observations from our laboratory indicate that rats sensitized by previous psychostimulant drug administration exhibit excessive cue-triggered reward-seeking behavior in this pure conditioned incentive paradigm (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000).”
§ 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 Wyvell and Berridge, 2000
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The inability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to enhance taste hedonic impact is consistent with the results of previous taste reactivity studies that have manipulated dopamine systems.”
§ 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 Treit and Berridge, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a et al., 1997
- Not checked yetcites Berridge et al., 1989
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.
In the paper
“Our conclusion that mesolimbic dopamine activation modulates the incentive salience of a Pavlovian sucrose cue is consistent with recent findings by Dickinson and colleagues who have demonstrated a converse suppression of conditioned incentive salience by dopamine antagonists.”
§ 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
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.
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
“Together, these results show that intra-accumbens amphetamine increased the pure conditioned incentive impact of the reward cue.”
§ 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
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.
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
“Together, these results support the hypothesis that accumbens amphetamine specifically enhances the attribution of incentive salience to Pavlovian reward cues.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Conclusion
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 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
“That is, amphetamine magnified the ability of a CSϩ cue to trigger instrumental behavior for its associated sucrose reward by acting in a purely conditioned incentive manner rather than through primary or secondary response reinforcement.”
§ 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
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
“Dickinson et al. (2000) found that systemic pimozide or ␣-flupenthixol specifically suppressed the ability of a Pavlovian food CSϩ to trigger instrumental performance for food under extinction conditions.”
§ 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
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.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“These results are compatible with other evidence that sensitization increases the conditioned incentive value of reward-related stimuli (Harmer and Phillips, 1998;De Vries et al., 1999;Fiorino and Phillips, 1999;Taylor and Horger, 1999).”
§ 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 Harmer and Phillips, 1998
- Not checked yetcites De Vries et al., 1999
- Not checked yetcites Fiorino and Phillips, 1999
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. 27
- Probably not a substantial claim. 22
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Amphetamine microinjection selectively potentiated the cue-elicited increase in sucrose-associated lever pressing, although instrumental responding was not reinforced by either sucrose or the cue during the test.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pressing on the sucrose lever was reliably increased by presentation of the CSϩ for rats in the primary and nonlocalized groups, both after vehicle microinjection (F (1,31) ϭ 8.32; p Ͻ 0.02) and after all doses of amphetamine ( p Ͻ 0.01 for every dose), although the effect of the CSϩ on pressing was much greater after amphetamine than after vehicle”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of cue presentations on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of cues, amphetamine microinjection produced an increase in pressing, especially on the control lever, and this effect occurred in both groups”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There were also significant effects on lever pressing for the drug dose factor (F (3,270) ϭ 3.164; p Ͻ 0.05) and the Pavlovian cue presence (F (1,270) ϭ 30.651; p Ͻ 0.001), and there was a significant interaction between cue ϫ group (F (1,270) ϭ 5.671; p Ͻ 0.05).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 1: instrumental testing
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of cues, the only effect of amphetamine microinjection was to slightly increase responding on both levers, especially the nonsucrose control lever.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“In the absence of the CSϩ reward cue, amphetamine had only a minimal general motor effect on pressing of both levers.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Sensorimotor arousal versus incentive value of food
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instrumental responding was increased up to 400% by intra-accumbens amphetamine during presentation of the CSϩ sucrose cue but not during presentation of the control CS random or CSϪ cues.”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“Intraaccumbens amphetamine nearly tripled the incentive impact triggered by the CSϩ sucrose cue, expressed by the increase in pressing elicited by the cue, but amphetamine had relatively little effect on pressing in the absence of the cue.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“amphetamine produced a trend toward a dose-dependent suppression of sucrose-elicited hedonic reaction patterns ( p ϭ 0.098; Friedman ANOVA), which became significant when the middle dose was excluded ( p Ͻ 0.05; Friedman ANOVA).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The CSϩ cue presence reversed the direction of amphetamine potentiation from the control lever to the sucrose lever and dramatically amplified the magnitude of response potentiation.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the absence of any cue, amphetamine microinjection produced a greater percentage increase in pressing on the control lever rather than on the sucrose lever (although the absolute rate of pressing on the control lever was always low).”
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
“In the absence of the cue, the percentage increase in pressing was greatest on the control lever.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The incentive salience hypothesis of dopamine function in reward suggests that accumbens dopamine neurotransmission modulates the attribution of incentive salience to reward cues, which triggers a motivational state of “wanting” for both the cue and its associated reward”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Valenstein, 1991
- Not checked yetcites Robinson and Berridge, 1993
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Robinson, 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the hedonia hypothesis suggests that dopamine mediates the hedonic impact of rewards”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Wise et al., 1978
- Not checked yetcites Wise, 1985 source
- Not checked yetcites Gardner and Lowinson, 1993
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“intra-accumbens microinjection of dopamine (DA) agonists can increase food intake and instrumental performance for food-related cues”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Cador et al., 1991
- Not checked yetcites Burns et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Sills and Vaccarino, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Dopaminergic activity in the nucleus accumbens is implicated in motivation for food and other incentives”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Hernandez and Hoebel, 1988
- Not checked yetcites Blackburn et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Phillips et al., 1993
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Reward learning hypotheses suggest that dopamine mediates either response reinforcement or associative predictions of reward”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Di Chiara, 1998
- Not checked yetcites McFarland and Ettenberg, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Schultz et al., 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Conditioned food preferences based on associative learning also increase positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Delamater et al., 1986
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Schulkin, 1989
- Not checked yetcites Breslin et al., 1990
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“They used a conditioned incentive paradigm to show that systemic dopamine antagonists specifically blocked the ability of a Pavlovian reward cue to trigger increases in responding for the associated reward”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Abstract
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dickinson et al., 2000
boosteddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Pecin ˜a and Berridge (2000) found that microinjections of an opioid agonist into the accumbens shell increased food intake and enhanced hedonic reaction patterns to an oral inf usion of sucrose (but did not increase aversive reactions to quinine).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“total scores of lever pressing during the responding bouts were first square root transformed to achieve homogeneity of variance as assessed by the Mauchly Sphericity test.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Statistics.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns of rats are increased by many of the same physiological, psychological, and pharmacological manipulations that increase human subjective ratings of taste palatability”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Berridge, 2000a
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Thus, opioid receptor activation in accumbens shell selectively potentiated the positive hedonic impact of a taste, apparently making food more “liked,” as well as more “wanted.””
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“six subjects with cannula placements located outside of the nucleus accumbens shell were excluded from the data analysis, which resulted in a final total of eight subjects per group.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plainn = 8- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Pharmacological manipulations that enhance the hedonic impact of a taste in the taste reactivity paradigm produce selective increases in positive hedonic reaction patterns and either no change or a reduction in negative aversive reaction patterns.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Treit and Berridge, 1990
- Not checked yetcites Doyle et al., 1993
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge 1996, 2000
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This indicates that the effect of the CS random nonconditioned cue was to mildly enhance responding on both the sucrose and nonsucrose control levers indiscriminately, which is consistent with an increase in general activity.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Control versus incentive effects
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The taste reactivity paradigm (Grill and Norgren, 1978) provides a way of specifically assessing the hedonic impact of a sucrose reward by measuring affective reactions elicited by oral inf usions of taste stimuli”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Grill and Norgren, 1978
- Not checked yetcites Grill and Berridge, 1985
- Not checked yetcites Berridge, 1996
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The use of two stationary cameras ensured a close-up view of the rats' faces and forelimbs while eliminating off-camera time.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This suggests that the sucrose cue both redirected and further magnified the effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine, switching the enhancement of responding from the control lever to the sucrose lever in an incentive-specific manner.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Effect of intra-accumbens amphetamine on lever pressing
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The pattern of data instead indicates that amphetamine either had little effect at all on hedonic impact or else shifted palatability slightly in the negative direction.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the primary experimental rats were randomly divided into two groups to receive either contingent [conditioned stimulus group (C Sϩ group)] (n ϭ 10) or noncontingent (C S random group) (n ϭ 10) training with a visual cue in the operant chambers.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 1: instrumental testing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The testing order of drug doses and vehicle was counterbalanced between subjects using a 4 ϫ 4 Latin square design.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The videotapes were scored in slow motion ( 1 ⁄10 of actual speed) by an observer blind to drug treatment condition.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Experiment 2: taste reactivity testing
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Instrumental performance was assessed under extinction conditions (i.e., no sucrose pellets were given during the test, so there was no primary reinforcement of pressing responses; similarly, the cue was no longer followed by sucrose, so there was no Pavlovian reinforcement; finally, pressing was not rewarded by the cue light, so there was no secondary reinforcement of responses).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Thus, the presence of the sucrose cue redirected the amphetamine enhancement of pressing away from the control lever and toward the sucrose lever and greatly multiplied its effect.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > DISCUSSION
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“C annula placements were verified”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Nonlocalized CS control group.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“The failure of amphetamine microinjection to enhance positive hedonic taste reactivity patterns is especially striking because morphine microinjection at a similar accumbens site does enhance positive hedonic reactions elicited by sucrose (Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of hedonic impact
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although our microinjections were placed into the accumbens shell, the spread of the drug microinjection was unknown.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“According to the incentive salience hypothesis, the attribution of incentive salience to a sucrose cue would boost behavior in two ways.First, by making the cue light located on the sucrose lever more attractive, the cue would become a more potent elicitor of approach responses (in a manner similar to autoshaping) (Brown and Jenkins, 1968;Beagley and Holley, 1977;Rescorla and Cunningham, 1979;Dave”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Enhancement of incentive salience attributed to CS؉
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Brown and Jenkins, 1968
- Not checked yetcites Robinson and Berridge, 1993
- Not checked yetcites Berridge and Robinson, 1998
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In contrast, baseline performance (more related to expectations of hedonic value based on previous experience) was not affected.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Enhancement of incentive salience attributed to CS؉
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Dickinson et al., 2000
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We never presented the cue as a contingent reinforcer for preceding responses but instead presented it freely every few minutes to elicit further subsequent responses.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of conditioned reinforcement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In short, the accumbens shell plays a special role in food reward, but the core may also be important.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Shell lesions abolish the ability of intra-accumbens amphetamine to potentiate responding for food conditioned reinforcers, whereas lesions of the accumbens core disrupt other learning-related aspects of conditioned reinforcement (Parkinson et al., 1999).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Parkinson et al., 1999
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Thus, our results cannot be explained by an amphetamine-induced enhancement of either primary or secondary reinforcement, although intra-accumbens amphetamine is known to enhance secondary reinforcement when response reinforcement contingencies exist (Taylor and Robbins, 1984;Robbins et al., 1989;Cador et al., 1991;Kelley and Delfs, 1991;Everitt and Robbins, 1992).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of conditioned reinforcement
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Taylor and Robbins, 1984
- Not checked yetcites Robbins et al., 1989
- Not checked yetcites Cador et al., 1991
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Our rats in experiment 1 were working for real sucrose (albeit in extinction) and not for the cue, which occurred independent of whether the rats pressed or not.”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Not an enhancement of conditioned reinforcement
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“The accumbens shell was targeted here because a special role for the shell has been implicated in dopamine activation by palatable food or food cues (Park and Carr, 1998;Bassareo and Di Chiara, 1999) and in the elicitation of feeding behavior (Swanson et al., 1997;Basso and Kelley, 1999;Pecin ˜a and Berridge, 2000).”
§ Intra-Accumbens Amphetamine Increases the Conditioned Incentive Salience of Sucrose Reward: Enhancement of Reward "Wanting" without Enhanced "Liking" or Response Reinforcement > Accumbens site of action
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites Park and Carr, 1998
- Not checked yetcites Bassareo and Di Chiara, 1999
- Not checked yetcites Swanson et al., 1997
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper relies on this without support.
Intra-accumbens amphetamine microinjection enhances dopamine neurotransmission in the nucleus accumbens shell.
“Microinjections of the indirect dopamine agonist amphetamine were administered into the accumbens shell to enhance dopamine neurotransmission.”
The paper relies on this without support.
To act as a conditioned reinforcer, a cue must be contingently presented after reinforced responses.
“However, to act as a conditioned reinforcer, the cue must be contingently presented after reinforced responses.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
In the citing paper
“For example, an hour of continuously high levels of brain dopamine, produced in a rat after microinjection of amphetamine in nucleus accumbens, does not actually cause continuously high ‘wanting’ motivation.”
From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Wyvell and Berridge, 2000
In the citing paper
“Instead, its intense peaks of ‘wanting’ to obtain a reward come and go during the session together as reward cues are presented and withdrawn (Wyvell and Berridge, 2000; Pecina and Berridge, 2013; Figure 2).”
From Evolving Concepts of Emotion and Motivation (2018) · cites this paper as Wyvell and Berridge, 2000
In the citing paper
“These behavioral phenotypes are accompanied by baseline differences in dopamine transmission, with bHRs showing elevated sensitivity to dopamine agonists, increased proportion of striatal D2receptors in a high-affinity state, greater frequency of spontaneous dopamine transients15, and higher reward-related dopamine release prior to conditioning, all of which could enhance their attribution of in”
From A selective role for dopamine in stimulus-reward learning (2011) · cites this paper as [29]
Citations
Cites
The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates
Paxinos, G., & Watson, C. (1983) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/c2009-0-63235-9 · Cited by 28,585
The neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction
Robinson, T. (1993) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p · Cited by 7,346 · cited 9×
“inson (Robinson and Berridge, 1993; Berridge and Robinson, 1998).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialAChE-stained horizontal sections of the rat brain in stereotaxic coordinates
Paxinos, G., WATSON, C. R. R., & Emson, P. C. (1980) · Journal of Neuroscience Methods · doi:10.1016/0165-0270(80)90021-7 · Cited by 4,501
What is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00019-8 · Cited by 4,127
Self-citationGlantz, S. A. (1981) · Cited by 2,636
Food reward: brain substrates of wanting and liking
Berridge, K. C. (1996) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/0149-7634(95)00033-b · Cited by 1,901 · cited 4×
“There were also significant effects on lever pressing for the drug dose factor (F(3,270) 5 3.164; p , 0.05) and the Pavlovian cue presence (F(1,270) 5 30.651; p , 0.001), and there was a significant interaction between cue 3 group (F(1,270) 5 5.671; p , 0.05).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationAUTO‐SHAPING OF THE PIGEON'S KEY‐PECK1
Brown, P. L., & Jenkins, H. M. (1968) · Journal of the Experimental Analysis of Behavior · doi:10.1901/jeab.1968.11-1 · Cited by 1,558 · cited 2×
“First, by making the cue light located on the sucrose lever more attractive, the cue would become a more potent elicitor of approach responses (in a manner similar to autoshaping) ( Brown and Jenkins, 1968; Beagley and Holley, 1977; Rescorla and Cunningham, 1979; Davey et al., 1984; Toates, 1986, 1994; Oscos et al., 1…”
BackgroundThe psychology and neurobiology of addiction: an incentive–sensitization view
Robinson, T. E., & Berridge, K. C. (2000) · Addiction · doi:10.1046/j.1360-0443.95.8s2.19.x · Cited by 1,507
Self-citationTwo-process learning theory: Relationships between Pavlovian conditioning and instrumental learning.
Rescorla, R. A., & Solomon, R. L. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024475 · Cited by 1,487 · cited 1×
“…processes such as incentive salience, because it measures the ability of a cue to trigger motivation for rewards in the absence of both primary and secondary reinforcement (Rescorla and Solomon, 1967; Toates, 1986; Dickinson and Dawson, 1987; Balleine, 1994; Dickinson and Balleine, 1994).”
BackgroundPavlovian conditioning and its proper control procedures.
Rescorla, R. A. (1967) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/h0024109 · Cited by 1,387 · cited 1×
“Using the taste reactivity measure of hedonic impact, it was shown that intra-accumbens amphetamine failed to increase positive hedonic reaction patterns elicited by sucrose (i.e., sucrose “liking”) at doses that effectively increase sucrose “wanting.””
Method
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- Everitt BJ Robbins TW (1992) Amygdala-ventral striatal interactions and reward-related processes. in The amygdala: neurobiological aspects of emotion, memory, and mental dysfunction, ed Appleton JP (Wiley-Liss, New York), pp 401–429.
- Toates F (1986) Motivational systems. (Cambridge UP, Cambridge, UK).
- Wyvell CL, Berridge KC (2000) Intra-accumbens amphetamine enhances the conditioned incentive salience of sucrose reward. Soc Neurosci Abstr, in press.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Neural systems of reinforcement for drug addiction: from actions to habits to compulsion
Everitt, B. J., & Robbins, T. W. (2005) · Nature Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nn1579 · Cited by 3,785
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379
Bardo, M. T., & Hammer, R. P. (1991) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/0306-4522(91)90226-e · Cited by 3,229
The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience
Berridge, K. C. (2007) · Psychopharmacology · doi:10.1007/s00213-006-0578-x · Cited by 2,347
“Dopamine activation or suppression specifically modulates the strength of this cue-triggered burst of 'wanting' motivation, which decays away soon after the reward cue is removed, only to reappear again when the cue is reencountered later (Dickinson et al. 2000; Wyvell and Berridge 2000, 2001).”
BackgroundResultInfluentialSelf-citationEmotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex
Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, J., & Everitt, B. J. (2002) · Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0149-7634(02)00007-6 · Cited by 2,129
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
