↓ Skip to main content

Nucleus Accumbens Mediates Relative Motivation for Rewards in the Absence of Choice

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

facebook
1 Facebook page
googleplus
2 Google+ users

Citations

dimensions_citation
57 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
113 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Nucleus Accumbens Mediates Relative Motivation for Rewards in the Absence of Choice
Published in
Frontiers in Human Neuroscience, January 2011
DOI 10.3389/fnhum.2011.00087
Pubmed ID
Authors

John A. Clithero, Crystal Reeck, R. McKell Carter, David V. Smith, Scott A. Huettel

Abstract

To dissociate a choice from its antecedent neural states, motivation associated with the expected outcome must be captured in the absence of choice. Yet, the neural mechanisms that mediate behavioral idiosyncrasies in motivation, particularly with regard to complex economic preferences, are rarely examined in situations without overt decisions. We employed functional magnetic resonance imaging in a large sample of participants while they anticipated earning rewards from two different modalities: monetary and candy rewards. An index for relative motivation toward different reward types was constructed using reaction times to the target for earning rewards. Activation in the nucleus accumbens (NAcc) and anterior insula (aINS) predicted individual variation in relative motivation between our reward modalities. NAcc activation, however, mediated the effects of aINS, indicating the NAcc is the likely source of this relative weighting. These results demonstrate that neural idiosyncrasies in reward efficacy exist even in the absence of explicit choices, and extend the role of NAcc as a critical brain region for such choice-free motivation.

Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 113 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United States 3 3%
Switzerland 2 2%
Germany 1 <1%
Japan 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 105 93%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 34 30%
Researcher 21 19%
Student > Doctoral Student 14 12%
Professor 8 7%
Professor > Associate Professor 8 7%
Other 19 17%
Unknown 9 8%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 45 40%
Neuroscience 18 16%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 11 10%
Business, Management and Accounting 5 4%
Medicine and Dentistry 5 4%
Other 15 13%
Unknown 14 12%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 3. 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 28 March 2017.
All research outputs
#13,134,992
of 22,675,759 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#3,840
of 7,115 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#132,479
of 180,328 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Human Neuroscience
#62
of 118 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,675,759 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 41st percentile – i.e., 41% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 7,115 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 14.5. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
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 180,328 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 26th percentile – i.e., 26% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 118 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 44th percentile – i.e., 44% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.