Evidence map›Paper›PMID 34351957›Full record

SynthesisPloS one2021

Brain activations associated with anticipation and delivery of monetary reward: A systematic review and meta-analysis of fMRI studies.

S Jauhar, L Fortea, A Solanes, A Albajes-Eizagirre, P J McKenna, J Radua

Abstract readMeta-AnalysisSystematic Review
In one paragraph

Synthesis in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 44 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
44citing papers in PubMed, 5 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
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

44 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. The effects of childhood adversity: Two specific neural patterns.Neuroscience and biobehavioral reviews · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Trial
  7. Trial
  8. Trial
  9. Trial
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Neural Representations and Functional Connections Underlie Subjective Positive Affect.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. 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

6 authors.

S JauharDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.
L ForteaImaging of Mood- and Anxiety-Related Disorders (IMARD) group, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0001-6778-2316
A SolanesImaging of Mood- and Anxiety-Related Disorders (IMARD) group, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
A Albajes-EizagirreImaging of Mood- and Anxiety-Related Disorders (IMARD) group, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.
P J McKennaImaging of Mood- and Anxiety-Related Disorders (IMARD) group, Institut d'Investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer (IDIBAPS), Barcelona, Spain.ORCID 0000-0003-1956-7157
J RaduaDepartment of Psychosis Studies, Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology and Neuroscience, King's College London, United Kingdom.ORCID 0000-0003-1240-5438

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundWhile multiple studies have examined the brain functional correlates of reward, meta-analyses have either focused on studies using the monetary incentive delay (MID) task, or have adopted a broad strategy, combining data from studies using both monetary and non-monetary reward, as probed using a wide range of tasks.

objectiveTo meta-analyze fMRI studies that used monetary reward and in which there was a definable cue-reward contingency. Studies were limited to those using monetary reward in order to avoid potential heterogeneity from use of other rewards, especially social rewards. Studies using gambling or delay discounting tasks were excluded on the grounds that reward anticipation is not easily quantifiable. STUDY ELIGIBILITY: English-language fMRI studies (i) that reported fMRI findings on healthy adults; (ii) that used monetary reward; and (iii) in which a cue that was predictive of reward was compared to a no win (or lesser win) condition. Only voxel-based studies were included; those where brain coverage was incomplete were excluded. DATA SOURCES: Ovid, Medline and PsycInfo, from 2000 to 2020, plus checking of review articles and meta-analyses. DATA SYNTHESIS: Data were pooled using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images (SDM-PSI). Heterogeneity among studies was examined using the I2 statistic. Publication bias was examined using funnel plots and statistical examination of asymmetries. Moderator variables including whether the task was pre-learnt, sex distribution, amount of money won and width of smoothing kernel were examined.

resultsPooled data from 45 studies of reward anticipation revealed activations in the ventral striatum, the middle cingulate cortex/supplementary motor area and the insula. Pooled data from 28 studies of reward delivery again revealed ventral striatal activation, plus cortical activations in the anterior and posterior cingulate cortex. There was relatively little evidence of publication bias. Among moderating variables, only whether the task was pre-learnt exerted an influence.

conclusionsAccording to this meta-analysis monetary reward anticipation and delivery both activate the ventral but not the dorsal striatum, and are associated with different patterns of cortical activation.

Indexed as

Anticipation, PsychologicalBrainMagnetic Resonance ImagingRewardBrain MappingCuesHumansMotivation

Identifiers

PMID34351957
PMCPMC8341642

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.