Cited by 676Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Contrasting Roles of Basolateral Amygdala and Orbitofrontal Cortex in Impulsive Choice

Open access
Winstanley, Catharine A., Theobald, David E. H., Cardinal, Rudolf N., Robbins, Trevor W.·2004·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) and basolateral nucleus of the amygdala (BLA) share many reciprocal connections, and a functional interaction between these regions is important in controlling goal-directed behavior. However, their relative roles have proved hard to dissociate. Although injury to these brain regions can cause similar effects, it has been suggested that the resulting impairments arise through damage to different, yet converging, cognitive processes. Patients with OFC or amygdala lesions exhibit maladaptive decision making and aberrant social behavior often described as impulsive. Impulsive choice may be measured in both humans and rodents by evaluating intolerance to delay of reinforcement. Rats with excitotoxic lesions of the BLA and OFC were tested on such a delay-discounting procedure. Although lesions of the BLA increased choice of the small immediate reward, indicating greater impulsivity, OFC lesions had the opposite effect, increasing preference for the larger but delayed reward. The fact that the delay did not devalue the large reward to such an extent in OFC-lesioned animals supports the suggestion that the OFC is involved in updating the incentive value of outcomes in response to devaluation. In contrast, the BLA-lesioned animals markedly decreased their preference for the large reward when it was delayed, potentially because of an inability to maintain a representation of the reward in its absence. This is the first time that lesions to these two structures have produced opposite behavioral effects, indicating their distinct contributions to cognition.

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.5606-03.2004

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Nonstimulants may have better inhibitory effects on abnormal affective processes in ADHD adults relative to youth.

    “indicating that nonstimulants may have better inhibitory effects on abnormal affective processes in ADHD adults relative to youth”

    From Overlapping and differential neuropharmacological mechanisms of stimulants and nonstimulants for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: A comparative neuroimaging analysis (2024) · cites this paper as Winstanley, Theobald, Cardinal, & Robbins, 2004

    The Introduction mentions ADHD only as an example of a condition involving impulsivity. The Discussion reports effects of brain lesions on impulsive choice in rats. Searches for nonstimulants, affective inhibition, and adult-versus-youth ADHD found no passage addressing the claimed treatment comparison; page numbers were not provided in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.75)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Winstanley, C. A., Theobald, D. E. H., Cardinal, R. N., & Robbins, T. W.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Winstanley, Catharine A.
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2004-05-19
Volume
24
Issue
20
Pages
4718-4722
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2159254339
Cited by
675
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 5 · 2025: 18 · 2024: 19 · 2023: 98 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 16 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 46 · 2014: 38 · 2013: 34 · 2012: 28
FWCI
14.97
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
impulsive choice, orbitofrontal cortex, basolateral amygdala, delay discounting, impulsivity, excitotoxic lesions, incentive value, reward devaluation, goal-directed behavior, decision-making
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Choice Behavior, Conditioning, Operant, Frontal Lobe, Impulsive Behavior, Male, Rats, Inbred Strains, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Time Factors, 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