Role of Dopamine Tone in the Pursuit of Brain Stimulation Reward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Dopaminergic neurons contribute to intracranial self-stimulation (ICSS) and other reward-seeking behaviors, but it is not yet known where dopaminergic neurons intervene in the neural circuitry underlying reward pursuit or which psychological processes are involved. In rats working for electrical stimulation of the medial forebrain bundle, we assessed the effect of GBR-12909 (1-[2-[bis(4-fluorophenyl)-methoxy]ethyl]-4-[3- phenylpropyl]piperazine), a specific blocker of the dopamine transporter. Operant performance was measured as a function of the strength and cost of electrical stimulation. GBR-12909 increased the opportunity cost most subjects were willing to pay for a reward of a given intensity. However, this effect was smaller than that produced by a regimen of cocaine administration that drove similar increases in nucleus accumbens (NAc) dopamine levels in unstimulated rats. Delivery of rewarding stimulation to drug-treated rats caused an additional increase in dopamine concentration in the NAc shell in cocaine-treated, but not GBR-12909-treated, rats. These behavioral and neurochemical differences may reflect blockade of the norepinephrine transporter by cocaine but not by GBR-12909. Whereas the effect of psychomotor stimulants on ICSS has long been attributed to dopaminergic action at early stages of the reward pathway, the results reported here imply that increased dopamine tone boosts reward pursuit by acting at or beyond the output of the circuitry that temporally and spatially summates the output of the directly stimulated neurons underlying ICSS. The observed enhancement of reward seeking could be attributable to a decrease in the value of competing behaviors, a decrease in subjective effort costs, or an increase in reward-system gain.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".