Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29455291›Full record

ArticlePsychopharmacology2018

The role of 'jackpot' stimuli in maladaptive decision-making: dissociable effects of D1/D2 receptor agonists and antagonists.

Aaron P Smith, Rebecca S Hofford, Thomas R Zentall, Joshua S Beckmann

Open access · greenAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychopharmacology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed
1.5field-weighted citation impact, top 19% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 19 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Aaron P SmithDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA.
Rebecca S HoffordDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA.
Thomas R ZentallDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA.
Joshua S BeckmannDepartment of Psychology, University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY, 40506, USA. joshua.beckmann@uky.edu.
University of Kentucky · US

Funding

Training in Drug Abuse Related Research.T32DA016176 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI DWOSKIN, LINDA P · 2004 to 2020
$4.0M
Tonic and Phasic Glutamate Release in Incentive Salience and Cocaine ReinforcemenR00DA033373 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI BECKMANN, JOSHUA · 2014 to 2016
$741k
Tonic and Phasic Glutamate Release in Incentive Salience and Cocaine ReinforcemenK99DA033373 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY · PI BECKMANN, JOSHUA · 2012 to 2013
$263k
NIDA NIH HHS DA016176NIDA NIH HHS DA033373NIDA NIH HHS K99 DA033373NIDA NIH HHS R00 DA033373NIDA NIH HHS T32 DA016176
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

rationaleLaboratory experiments often model risk through a choice between a large, uncertain (LU) reward against a small, certain (SC) reward as an index of an individual's risk tolerance. An important factor generally lacking from these procedures are reward-associated cues that may modulate risk preferences.

objectiveWe tested whether the addition of cues signaling 'jackpot' wins to LU choices would modulate risk preferences and if these cue effects were mediated by dopaminergic signaling.

methodsThree groups of rats chose between LU and SC rewards for which the LU probability of reward decreased across blocks. The unsignaled group received a non-informative stimulus of trial outcome. The signaled group received a jackpot signal prior to reward delivery and blackout on losses. The signaled-light group received a similar jackpot for wins, but a salient loss signal distinct from the win signal.

resultsPresenting win signals decreased the discounting of LU value for both signaled groups regardless of loss signal, while the unsignaled group showed discounting similar to previous research without cues. Pharmacological challenges with D1/D2 agonists and antagonists revealed that D1 antagonism increased and decreased sensitives to the relative probability of reward for unsignaled and signaled groups, respectively, while D2 agonists decreased sensitivities to the relative magnitude of reward.

conclusionThe results highlight how signals predictive of wins can promote maladaptive risk taking in individuals, while loss signals have reduced effect. Additionally, the presence of reward-predictive cues may change the underlying neurobehavioral mechanisms mediating decision-making under risk.

Indexed as

RewardAnimalsChoice BehaviorCuesDecision MakingDopamineDopamine AgonistsDopamine AntagonistsDose-Response Relationship, DrugMaleRatsRats, Sprague-DawleyReceptors, Dopamine D1Receptors, Dopamine D2Risk-TakingDopamineDopamine AgonistsDopamine AntagonistsReceptors, Dopamine D1Receptors, Dopamine D2Decision-makingDiscountingDopamineGamblingRatSuboptimal choice

Identifiers

PMID29455291
PMCPMC7716655
OpenAlexW2788371851

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.