The Neurobiology of Cocaine‐Induced Reinforcement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Cocaine has potent pharmacological actions on a number of monoaminergic systems in the brain, including those that use noradrenaline, dopamine and serotonin as neurotransmitters. There is growing evidence that cocaine's effects on dopaminergic neurons, particularly those that make up the mesolimbic system, are closely associated with its rewarding properties. For example, low doses of dopamine receptor antagonists reliably influence cocaine self-administration, whereas noradrenaline and serotonin receptor antagonists are without consistent effects. Similarly, selective lesions of dopaminergic terminals in the nucleus accumbens, a major target of the mesolimbic dopamine projection, disrupt cocaine self-administration in a manner that is consistent with loss of cocaine-induced reward. The introduction of in vivo brain microdialysis as a tool with which to investigate the neurochemical correlates of motivated behaviour has provided new opportunities for investigating the role of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens in the acquisition and maintenance of cocaine self-administration. Although the body of literature that has been generated by this approach appears to contain some important inconsistencies, these probably reflect the use of inappropriate microdialysis conditions by some investigators. A critical review of the literature suggests that microdialysis results are generally consistent with a role for mesolimbic dopamine in cocaine-induced reward, although it does not seem to be the case that animals will work to maintain consistent increases in extracellular concentrations of dopamine in the nucleus accumbens in all experimental conditions. Elucidation of the complete neural circuitry of cocaine-induced reward remains an important priority for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".