↓ Skip to main content

Dual contributions of noradrenaline to behavioural flexibility and motivation

Overview of attention for article published in Psychopharmacology, July 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (86th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (87th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
28 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
37 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
88 Mendeley
Title
Dual contributions of noradrenaline to behavioural flexibility and motivation
Published in
Psychopharmacology, July 2018
DOI 10.1007/s00213-018-4963-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Caroline I. Jahn, Sophie Gilardeau, Chiara Varazzani, Bastien Blain, Jerome Sallet, Mark E. Walton, Sebastien Bouret

Abstract

While several theories have highlighted the importance of the noradrenergic system for behavioral flexibility, a number of recent studies have also shown a role for noradrenaline in motivation, particularly in effort processing. Here, we designed a novel sequential cost/benefit decision task to test the causal influence of noradrenaline on these two functions in rhesus monkeys. We manipulated noradrenaline using clonidine, an alpha-2 noradrenergic receptor agonist, which reduces central noradrenaline levels and examined how this manipulation influenced performance on the task. Clonidine had two specific and distinct effects: first, it decreased choice variability, without affecting the cost/benefit trade-off; and second, it reduced force production, without modulating the willingness to work. Together, these results support an overarching role for noradrenaline in facing challenging situations in two complementary ways: by modulating behavioral volatility, which would facilitate adaptation depending on the lability of the environment, and by modulating the mobilization of resources to face immediate challenges.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 28 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 88 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 88 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 25 28%
Researcher 15 17%
Student > Master 12 14%
Student > Bachelor 5 6%
Other 4 5%
Other 7 8%
Unknown 20 23%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 33 38%
Psychology 16 18%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 4 5%
Philosophy 2 2%
Arts and Humanities 2 2%
Other 8 9%
Unknown 23 26%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 15. 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 22 August 2022.
All research outputs
#2,344,311
of 25,026,088 outputs
Outputs from Psychopharmacology
#570
of 5,590 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#46,256
of 332,403 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Psychopharmacology
#7
of 48 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,026,088 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 90th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 5,590 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 11.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% 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 332,403 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 86% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 48 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 87% of its contemporaries.