2010
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-010-1883-y
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Differential effects of dopaminergic manipulations on risky choice

Abstract: Reductions in normal DA tone consistently biases choice away larger, probabilistic rewards. In contrast, increases in DA release may disrupt adjustments in behavior in response to changes in the relative value of certain versus uncertain rewards. These findings further clarify the role of DA in mediating risk/reward judgments and how perturbations in DA signaling may interfere with the ability to adjust decision making in response to changes in reward contingencies.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

6
112
2

Year Published

2010
2010
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
8
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 107 publications
(120 citation statements)
references
References 32 publications
6
112
2
Order By: Relevance
“…The first is that slackers may be more sensitive to the probability of reward or punishment. On decision-making tasks involving risk or ambiguity, amphetamine challenge has been shown to shift choice preference in favor of smaller rewards delivered with a higher probability, even at a normative cost across the session (Mitchell et al, 2011;Zeeb et al, 2009), in effect increasing animals' sensitivity to reward/punishment probability (but see St Onge et al, 2010). Workers and all control animals demonstrated a similar response to amphetamine, increasing choice of the higher accuracy/probability LR trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The first is that slackers may be more sensitive to the probability of reward or punishment. On decision-making tasks involving risk or ambiguity, amphetamine challenge has been shown to shift choice preference in favor of smaller rewards delivered with a higher probability, even at a normative cost across the session (Mitchell et al, 2011;Zeeb et al, 2009), in effect increasing animals' sensitivity to reward/punishment probability (but see St Onge et al, 2010). Workers and all control animals demonstrated a similar response to amphetamine, increasing choice of the higher accuracy/probability LR trials.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…First, the ICSS-mediated discounting task was acquired by rats in the first test session, and stable baseline discounting was achieved in 3 days of testing. This contrasts food reinforcement discounting where typically 10 test sessions are needed for acquisition and 25-35 days are required to reach stable discounting behavior (St Onge et al, 2010;Ghods-Sharifi et al, 2009). Second, ICSS allows for testing several probabilities in a randomized order, a feature that is not successfully implemented with food-reinforced discounting (St Onge et al, 2010).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This contrasts food reinforcement discounting where typically 10 test sessions are needed for acquisition and 25-35 days are required to reach stable discounting behavior (St Onge et al, 2010;Ghods-Sharifi et al, 2009). Second, ICSS allows for testing several probabilities in a randomized order, a feature that is not successfully implemented with food-reinforced discounting (St Onge et al, 2010). Randomization encourages rats to continue selecting the LR lever even at very low probabilities (in contrast to what is obtained with protocols using predictable, descending probabilities; Rokosik and Napier, 2011).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Risk-discounting task The primary task used in these studies has been described previously (Floresco & Whelan, 2009;Ghods-Sharifi et al, 2009;St. Onge, Chiu, & Floresco, 2010;, which was originally modified from that described by Cardinal and Howes (2005) (see Fig.…”
Section: Decision-making Tasksmentioning
confidence: 99%