Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals

Berridge, Kent; Kringelbach, Morten L.

doi:10.1007/s00213-008-1099-6

Cited by 1,030 publications

(853 citation statements)

References 208 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

807

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…From neuroscientists' point of view, palatability corresponds to the 'liking' or hedonic component of the brain reward system (Berridge, 1996), which deals with affective responses to the food and induces pleasure (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2008).…”

Section: Sensory Characteristics: a Way To Get Pleasurementioning

confidence: 99%

Food sensory characteristics: their unconsidered roles in the feeding behaviour of domestic ruminants

Favreau-Peigné

Baumont

Ginane

2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

When domestic ruminants are faced with food diversity, they can use pre-ingestive information (i.e. food sensory characteristics perceived by the animal before swallowing the food) and post-ingestive information (i.e. digestive and metabolic consequences, experienced by the animal after swallowing the food) to evaluate the food and make decisions to select a suitable diet. The concept of palatability is essential to understand how pre-and post-ingestive information are interrelated. It refers to the hedonic value of the food without any immediate effect of post-ingestive consequences and environmental factors, but with the influence of individual characteristics, such as animal's genetic background, internal state and previous experiences. In the literature, the post-ingestive consequences are commonly considered as the main force that influences feeding behaviour whereas food sensory characteristics are only used as discriminatory agents. This discriminatory role is indeed important for animals to be aware of their feeding environment, and ruminants are able to use their different senses either singly or in combination to discriminate between different foods. However, numerous studies on ruminants' feeding behaviour demonstrate that the role of food sensory characteristics has been underestimated or simplified; they could play at least two other roles. First, some sensory characteristics also possess a hedonic value which influences ruminants' intake, preferences and food learning independently of any immediate post-ingestive consequences. Further, diversity of food sensory characteristics has a hedonic value, as animals prefer an absence of monotony in food sensory characteristics at similar post-ingestive consequences. Second, some of these food sensory characteristics become an indicator of post-ingestive consequences after their initial hedonic value has acquired a positive or a negative value via previous individual food learning or evolutionary processes. These food sensory characteristics thus represent cues that could help ruminants to anticipate the post-ingestive consequences of a food and to improve their learning efficiency, especially in complex environments. This review then suggests that food sensory characteristics could be of importance to provide pleasure to animals, to increase palatability of a food and to help them learn in complex feeding situations which could improve animal welfare and productivity.

show abstract

Section: Sensory Characteristics: a Way To Get Pleasurementioning

confidence: 99%

Food sensory characteristics: their unconsidered roles in the feeding behaviour of domestic ruminants

Favreau-Peigné

Baumont

Ginane

2013

Animal

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, it has been found that the esthetic experience involves a widely distributed circuit with greater activation for beautiful stimuli in anterior cingulate gyrus, dorsolateral and medial frontal cortices (Berridge and Kringelbach, 2008;Breiter et al, 2001;Di Dio et al, 2011;Kirk et al, 2009).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Attractiveness and affordance shape tools neural coding: Insight from ERPs

Righi

Orlando

Marzi

2014

International Journal of Psychophysiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article appeared in a journal published by Elsevier. The attached copy is furnished to the author for internal non-commercial research and education use, including for instruction at the authors institution and sharing with colleagues.Other uses, including reproduction and distribution, or selling or licensing copies, or posting to personal, institutional or third party websites are prohibited. The relation between attractiveness and motor affordance is a key topic in design and has not yet been investigated electrophysiologically. In this respect, action affordance and attractiveness represent two crucial dimensions in object processing (specifically for tools). In light of this evidence, Event Related Potentials (ERPs) enabled us to gain new insights into the time course of the interaction between these two dimensions during an explicit tool evaluation task. Behaviorally, tools that were judged as high affording and high attractive yielded faster response times than those judged as low affording and low attractive. The ERP results showed that early processes related to sensory gating and feature extraction (N100) were sensitive to both affordance and attractiveness; the P200 was dominated by affordance, indexing a facilitated access to motor action representation. The N300, P300 and the Late Positive Potential (LPP) showed enhanced responses for highly affording/attractive tools, reflecting the interconnection between attractiveness and affordance. Later responses were entirely affected by attractiveness, suggesting additional affective responses evoked by desirable tools. We are showing that things that are perceived as more functional and attractive have a privileged neural activation in the time course of tool evaluation, for the first time.

show abstract

“…Although the relation between neural and behavioural reward responses to reward may seem straightforward, the behavioural and neural parameters compared here may reflect different stages of reward processing. As described in the Introduction, reward processing can be viewed as involving three stages (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2008). First, reward anticipation , preceding the rewarding stimulus.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…As such, reward is pivotal for driving many human behaviours. Following this, different phases of reward functioning may be defined as distinct behaviours (Berridge & Kringelbach, 2008; Nawijn et al, 2015). Reward wanting is the anticipatory motivation towards obtaining the stimulus, whereas reward consumption is linked to the pleasure felt by obtaining the stimulus.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Anhedonia and emotional numbing in treatment-seeking veterans: behavioural and electrophysiological responses to reward

Eskelund¹,

Karstoft

Andersen

2018

European Journal of Psychotraumatology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Anhedonia is a common symptom following exposure to traumatic stress and a feature of the PTSD diagnosis. In depression research, anhedonia has been linked to deficits in reward functioning, reflected in behavioural and neural responses. Such deficits following exposure to trauma, however, are not well understood.Objective: The current study aims to estimate the associations between anhedonia, PTSD symptom-clusters and behavioural and electrophysiological responses to reward.Methods: Participants (N = 61) were recruited among Danish treatment-seeking veterans at the Department of Military Psychology in the Danish Defence. Before entering treatment, participants were screened with symptom measurement instruments and participated in a joint behavioural-electrophysiological experiment. The experimental paradigm consisted of a signal-detection task aimed at assessing reward-driven learning. Simultaneous electrophysiological-recordings were analysed to evaluate neural responses upon receiving reward, as indicated by the Feedback-Related Negativity (FRN) component.Result: Anhedonia as conceptualized in depression correlated with behavioural learning (r = -0.28, p = .032). Neither anhedonia nor behavioural learning correlated with FRN. However, the anhedonia symptom cluster of PTSD did correlate with FRN (r = 0.29, p = .023). Extending upon this in an exploratory analysis, the specific PTSD-symptom emotional numbing was found to correlate moderately with FRN (r = 0.38, p = .003).Conclusion: The present data suggest that anhedonia in trauma-exposed individuals is related to the anticipatory aspect of reward, whereas the neural consummatory reward response seems unlinked. Interestingly, emotional numbing in the same population is related to the consummatory phase of reward, correlating with the FRN response. This suggests that anhedonia and emotional numbing in response to trauma might pertain to different phases of reward processing.

show abstract

Affective neuroscience of pleasure: reward in humans and animals

Cited by 1,030 publications

References 208 publications

Food sensory characteristics: their unconsidered roles in the feeding behaviour of domestic ruminants

Food sensory characteristics: their unconsidered roles in the feeding behaviour of domestic ruminants

Attractiveness and affordance shape tools neural coding: Insight from ERPs

Anhedonia and emotional numbing in treatment-seeking veterans: behavioural and electrophysiological responses to reward

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About