Cited by 223Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeuropeptides and Animal PhysiologyMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Which cue to "want?" Central amygdala opioid activation enhances and focuses incentive salience on a prepotent reward cue

Open access
Mahler, Stephen V., Berridge, Kent C.·2009·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The central nucleus of the amygdala (CeA) helps translate learning into motivation, and here, we show that opioid stimulation of CeA magnifies and focuses learned incentive salience onto a specific reward cue (pavlovian conditioned stimulus, or CS). This motivation enhancement makes that cue more attractive, noticeable, and liable to elicit appetitive and consummatory behaviors. To reveal the focusing of incentive salience, we exploited individual differences in an autoshaping paradigm in which a rat prefers to approach, nibble, and sniff one of two reward-associated stimuli (its prepotent stimulus). The individually prepotent cue is either a predictive CS+ that signals reward (8 s metal lever insertion) or instead the metal cup that delivers sucrose pellets (the reward source). Results indicated that CeA opioid activation by microinjection of the mu agonist DAMGO (0.1 microg) selectively and reversibly enhanced the attractiveness of whichever reward CS was that rat's prepotent cue. CeA DAMGO microinjections made rats more vigorously approach their particular prepotent CS and to energetically sniff and nibble it in a nearly frenzied consummatory manner. Only the prepotent cue was enhanced as an incentive target, and alternative cues were not enhanced. Conversely, inactivation of CeA by muscimol microinjection (0.25 microg) suppressed approach, nibbles, and sniffs of the prepotent CS. Confirming modulation of incentive salience, unconditioned food intake was similarly increased by DAMGO microinjection and decreased by muscimol in CeA. We conclude that opioid neurotransmission in CeA helps determine which environmental stimuli become most "wanted," and how "wanted" they become. This may powerfully guide reward-seeking behavior.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1523/jneurosci.3875-08.2009

Cites

88 of 88 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Activation of opioidergic transmission corresponding to liking tends to increase dopamine activation in response to the incentive being encountered subsequently.

    “Activation of opioidergic transmission corresponding to liking tends to increase dopamine activation in response to the incentive being encountered subsequently (Mahler and Berridge, 2009).”

    From A motivation model of sex addiction – Relevance to the controversy over the concept (2022) · cites this paper as Mahler and Berridge, 2009

    The Results (Synopsis; page not provided) report that central-amygdala opioid activation increased rats’ behavioral responses to a reward cue. The Discussion (Anatomical Localization of Function; page not provided) says this activation likely recruited broader reward circuits, including nucleus accumbens dopamine. The paper does not establish that the opioid activation corresponded to ‘liking’ or that dopamine activation increased when the incentive was subsequently encountered. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Toates F 1986 Motivational Systems Cambridge, UK Cambridge University Press

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Mahler, S. V., & Berridge, K. C.
Affiliations
  • University of Michigan (US)
  • Medical University of South Carolina (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2009-05-20
Volume
29
Issue
20
Pages
6500-6513
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1964711918
Cited by
223
References
87
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 50 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 18 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 20
FWCI
6.24
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (DA015188, DA015188 and MH63649)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (MH-63649, R01MH063649)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (DA021481, DA015188, R01DA015188, F31DA021481)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neuropeptides and Animal Physiology
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
central amygdala, opioid signaling, mu-opioid receptor, incentive salience, reward cues, autoshaping, approach behavior, consummatory behavior, dietary intake, motivation, DAMGO, muscimol inactivation, reward seeking
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Analgesics, Opioid, Analysis of Variance, Animals, Appetitive Behavior, Attention, Behavior, Animal, Conditioning, Classical, Conditioning, Operant, Cues, Eating, Female, Microinjections, Motivation, Muscimol, Gene Expression, Oncogene Proteins v-fos, Rats, Sprague-Dawley, GABA Agonists, Enkephalin, Ala(2)-MePhe(4)-Gly(5)-, 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.

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