| Title |
Individual differences in dopamine D2 receptor availability correlate with reward valuation
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience, May 2018
|
| DOI | 10.3758/s13415-018-0601-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Linh C. Dang, Gregory R. Samanez-Larkin, Jaime J. Castrellon, Scott F. Perkins, Ronald L. Cowan, David H. Zald |
| Abstract |
Reward valuation, which underlies all value-based decision-making, has been associated with dopamine function in many studies of nonhuman animals, but there is relatively less direct evidence for an association in humans. Here, we measured dopamine D2 receptor (DRD2) availability in vivo in humans to examine relations between individual differences in dopamine receptor availability and neural activity associated with a measure of reward valuation, expected value (i.e., the product of reward magnitude and the probability of obtaining the reward). Fourteen healthy adult subjects underwent PET with [18F]fallypride, a radiotracer with strong affinity for DRD2, and fMRI (on a separate day) while performing a reward valuation task. [18F]fallypride binding potential, reflecting DRD2 availability, in the midbrain correlated positively with neural activity associated with expected value, specifically in the left ventral striatum/caudate. The present results provide in vivo evidence from humans showing midbrain dopamine characteristics are associated with reward valuation. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 6 | 50% |
| Canada | 2 | 17% |
| United Kingdom | 2 | 17% |
| Unknown | 2 | 17% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 6 | 50% |
| Scientists | 5 | 42% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 8% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 55 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 55 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 13 | 24% |
| Researcher | 10 | 18% |
| Student > Master | 8 | 15% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 4 | 7% |
| Other | 3 | 5% |
| Other | 8 | 15% |
| Unknown | 9 | 16% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Neuroscience | 15 | 27% |
| Psychology | 15 | 27% |
| Social Sciences | 2 | 4% |
| Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology | 1 | 2% |
| Physics and Astronomy | 1 | 2% |
| Other | 6 | 11% |
| Unknown | 15 | 27% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 7. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 January 2023.
All research outputs
#5,204,686
of 25,550,333 outputs
Outputs from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#231
of 1,076 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#92,034
of 339,382 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Cognitive, Affective, & Behavioral Neuroscience
#10
of 20 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,550,333 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 79th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,076 research outputs from this source. They typically receive more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 8.7. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 339,382 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 20 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 55% of its contemporaries.