Talk:Reward system/Archive 1

Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction
"All illegal drugs target the brain’s reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine."

I really wanted to change this but it is a direct quote from the National Institute on Drug Abuse. There are quite a few popular illegal drugs that have almost no effect on dopamine (namely hallucinogens), and quite a few others that have no more effect on dopamine than eating a bar of chocolate.

Only the opioids and stimulants (amphetamine, cocaine), and a few other directly work in this way.

This oversimplification and broad classification is typical of the lack of understanding and ignorance about drug use. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.7.223.170 (talk) 18:36, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction
I tried to copyedit some clarity, verifiablity and neutrality into this section but in the end I decided to remove it completely: Reward Circuit and Drug Addiction Understanding the reward circuit is critical in understanding addiction. The National Institute on Drug Abuse describes the reward circuit as a process that “links together a number of brain structures that control and regulate our ability to feel pleasure.” Feeling pleasure motivates us to repeat behaviors. In essence, the reward circuit has evolved within us to reward and encourage our natural behaviors that help ensure our survival, like eating and reproducing. Each time the reward system is stimulated the brain takes specific note of the activity. The more we engage in a pleasurable act the more we learn to repeat it, eventually without even thinking about it. The problem with illicit drugs is that they not only activate the reward circuit, they hijack it, producing more pleasurable feelings than our brains could possibly produce on their own. All illegal drugs target the brain’s reward system by flooding the circuit with dopamine. Dopamine is a specific neurotransmitter found in areas of the brain related to emotion, cognition, motivation, and specifically pleasure. Drugs over stimulate this system releasing anywhere from two to ten times the amount of dopamine as any natural reward. The pleasure felt from drug use then dwarfs that felt from naturally rewarding behaviors such as food, music, or sex, and explains why drugs are more addictive than these naturally rewarding acts. This powerful reward motivates people to take drugs again and again by producing the euphoric feelings sought by addicts. As humans we are wired to repeat actions by associating them with reward. This is ultimately, as NIDA describes, what “drive[s] the compulsive drug abuse that marks addiction.” It was either removing it or plastering   tags all over it. The paragraph is an inaccurate oversimplification of facts. It also jumps to conclusions without any source or ref. Not encyclopedic at all. It has been added to three articles (Addiction, Drug addiction, and Reward system) by what appears to be an SPA editor. Any comments? Yinta ɳ  08:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Shouldn't this article mention endorphins?
? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.30.241.178 (talk) 14:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Is fighting necessary for the survival of a species?
I'm not sure it's strictly necessary. Advanced species, including humans, do it, but much of the 'fighting' that humans do takes place through more advanced proxies for biological competition, such as business.--Jackdaw and Wool (talk) 18:09, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

This article is unnecessary
It seems to me that "rewards" should redirect to the more comprehensive page on Reinforcement, which itself contains links to drug addiction anyway. Unless there are any objections, I will take care of this eventually.

-Tesseract2 (talk) 16:38, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

I object. The reinforcement page describes the psychological mechanisms of reinforcement, while this page describes the neurological mechanisms of reinforcement. However, this subject would recieve much more attention on the reinforcement page, something that this article is in dire need of. The Cowdestroyer (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Linked article does not support statement
"Rewards are generally considered more effective than punishment in enforcing positive behavior.[2] ^ "Smacking children 'does not work'". BBC News. 1999-01-11. Retrieved 2010-05-22.

The linked source compares the effectiveness of violent and non-violent punishments but does not mention rewards at all. 217.229.57.66 (talk) 14:19, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

I agree. A single non-peer-reviewed news item (even if it refers to research that may have been peer reviewed) about smacking kids is not enough to justify the "...generally considered..." portion of the above. I'd suggest the entire statement about rewards versus punishment be removed until someone provides more robust references. Thomask0 (talk) 02:02, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Outline of Article Content
I. Definition a. Functions b. Uses II. History a. Discovery b. Benefits c. Negatives III. Anatomy a. Mesolimbic and Mesocortical Pathway b. Children c. Adults IV. Drugs a. Modulation by Drugs b. Endorphins c. Neurotransmitters d. Dopamine V. Motivation a. Operant Conditioning 1. Positive Reinforcement

As a group we're going to clearly explain the reward system and how it works. We will also include pictures and diagrams to help us convey our explanation.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellepapandrea (talk • contribs) 23:28, 8 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's comments

 * Group, it looks like you're going to tackle the article as a whole rather than a section within the article, which is fine. Below are comments on specific sections:
 * "Definition" section - not sure what you would have in this section. This article focuses on neurological aspects of reinforcement (see "This article is unnecessary" section of this talk page).
 * "History" section - this could be an interesting addition on the discovery of the reward system. Not sure what you would have for Benefits and Negatives.
 * "Anatomy" section - so you're adding to existing info on the article page, right? The sections on Children and Adults do not make sense. But if you can find good secondary references to compare Humans and animals (e.g., primates, rats), that will be good.
 * "Drugs" section - I'm assuming you want to add to the "Modulation by drugs" section? If you're going to write about endorphins, make sure to put it within the context of how endorphins interact with the reward system. Ditto for dopamine. There should not be another subsection on neurotransmitters because both dopomine & endorphins are neurotransmitters.
 * "Motivation" section doesn't seem appropriate as it seems more pertinent to psychological aspects of reinforcement.

Neuropsychprof (talk) 22:56, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding your references, you need more secondary sources of information that are reliable. Remember your textbook is a good place to start. Use medically bases databases such as PubMed to search for review articles and chapters.

Comments from Keilana
Hi everybody! You're doing a great job so far. I do have a few suggestions for you though. Like the usual Wikipedia style, I'm just going to leave them in a bulleted list below, and you can ask me questions there or on my talk page.


 * Your titles need to be in Wikipedia's house style, which entails capitalizing the first letter and leaving the rest lowercase. For example, "Drugs and reward system" instead of "Drugs And Reward System".
 * You have a bare URL at the end of the "Definition" section, which needs to be converted into a reference. Let me know if you need help with that.
 * The first paragraph of "History" needs a quick copyedit and at least one citation. Here's a tip - if you ever need a really good copyeditor for something, you can ask at the Guild of Copy Editors, a group on Wikipedia dedicated solely to copyediting.
 * The first paragraph of "Anatomy of the reward system" needs to be cited.
 * You guys have made a good start on the "Animals vs humans" section, but you should try and find other sources. Don't just rely on one researcher.
 * The whole "Modulation with drugs" section needs citations throughout. You also don't need to say, for example, "Gilpin states" the way you would in a paper for class. It's enough to say the part after that and just put a citation to Gilpin at the end. The same goes for the stuff about Berridge.
 * Several sections need wikilinks for the important concepts. I think "Reward as a behavioral effect", "animals vs humans", "Drugs and reward system", and "Neurotransmitters and reward circuits" need more links.

I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any questions or if you need anything. Keilana&#124;Parlez ici 17:42, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

--- Hi Keliana! Thanks for all of your feedback! You said we need to have the first section of the "Anatomy of the reward system" cited; however, that first part is not my work so I was unsure if to leave it or delete the entire thing because I don't have a source for their work. I decided to leave it but I'm still unsure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Michellepapandrea (talk • contribs) 03:42, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Smallman12q
Smallman12q (talk) 22:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The first paragraph needs work. The bolded term should be defined in the first sentence.
 * The history section should be reworked. Skinner wasn't the only contributor to the field.
 * The sections should be made more concise (some sentences are redundant).
 * You should discuss how reward systems are influenced at the group-level.
 * You could create several simple diagrams illustrating how the reward system works and how certain conditions influence it.
 * How certain factors such as willpower/temptation factor in.

Comments from Nszynal-ru
Nszynal-ru (talk) 19:48, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
 * What other scientists have done experimental work on the reward system? What were there impacts?
 * Some minor citation issues need to be fixed.
 * How does the reward system effect children, adolescents, and adults in real world examples to give a better understanding.

Comments from Narmstrong484

 * Thought the article was pretty comprehensive, easy to read, and very informative.
 * Maybe the definition section can just be written into the main introduction? It seemed like it would fit better there.
 * Also dopamine could be hyperlinked to the corresponding wikipedia pages in the section that mentions it as a main neurotransmitter involved with the reward system.
 * Also the History section could be expanded, other theorists conducted research that pioneered the understanding of the reward system and operant conditioning. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Narmstrong484 (talk • contribs) 05:34, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from HGilbert12

 * I really like thats it's easy read and very understanding for viewers to read it
 * I really like the idea of comparing animals and humans. maybe add example in animal vs. human section for each part
 * I like the idea above. Moving the definition to the first paragraph. You normally see definition when you start reading.
 * Keep up the good work! — Preceding unsigned comment added by HGilbert12 (talk • contribs) 17:09, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Comments from Epottala

 * You are tackling a lot by developing an entire article, and it seems you are doing well. The content is well researched, but the citations are lacking in certain areas.
 * Your focus seems off. The article begins with broad definition of Rewards, but the remainder of the article leans toward a focus on neurological aspects and the reward system. It would be beneficial and easier for the viewer to understand if you maintained your focus on this. Also, as someone mentioned above, it would help distinguish this article from behavioral reinforcement.
 * The categorical organization follows a comprehensible flow, and is easy to understand. I feel that your use of an outline helped greatly.

Epottala (talk) 18:35, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Instructor's feedback
Keep up your good work! Neuropsychprof (talk) 06:18, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with reviewers above who suggested that the Definition section should be integrated with the opening paragraph. It would also be helpful in this opening paragraph to differentiate between the content of this article and the Reinforcement article (please see "This article is uncessary" section of the talk page). I encourage you to be even more bold and get rid of the "Reward as a behavioral effect" section; integrate what should be kept in the opening paragraph (i.e., what differentiate reward and reinforcement; primary and secondary rewards), but get rid of controversial parts unless you can find good support (see. "Linked article does not support statement" part of the talk page).
 * History: I like the changes you've made to this section! You need to provide more info on your references. Please review this Referencing: Wikicode handout for the types of info to be included.
 * Humans vs animals: This is an important section. Please note that stimulation of this "reward" pathway in humans have led to the realization that initial interpretation of this as a "reward" pathway is mislabelled. In brain stimulation studies, humans report a sense of frustration about to be relieved when this pathway is stimulated, motivating them to continue stimulating this pathway in the hope that frustration will be relieved. That is, humans don't report pleasurable sensations as originally thought. So the neuroscience field is now naming this "motivational" pathway rather than "reward" pathway. You can find this info in our textbook (pp. 522-526). The info you have regarding Berridge's study are directly relevant. The old idea of a "reward" is being broken down into hedonic vs. motivational components (i.e., liking vs. wanting). This section seems to be fit better under the History section rather than the Anatomy section.
 * Drugs and reward system: This paragraph is very general and non-specific. I recommend deleting this section.
 * Neurotransmitters and reward circuits: This section is too general and non-specific to be useful. I recommend deleting what you have and elaborate on specific activities of dopaminergic neurons. You can review the actity of the VTA and ventral striatal neurons (i.e., nucleus accumbens) related to anticipation of getting a drug (reward), and subsequent to getting or not getting that anticipated reward. I will send this group a couple of articles to help you get started. This is a complex literature, so you will need to rise up to the challenge.

Are extrinsic rewards, money not pleasurable?
This article is so much improved over a year or even six months ago. However... from the article:
 * "Intrinsic rewards are unconditioned rewards that are attractive and motivate behavior because they are inherently pleasurable. Extrinsic rewards, such as money, are conditioned rewards that are attractive and motivate behavior, but are not pleasurable . Extrinsic rewards derive their motivational value as a result of a learned association (i.e., conditioning) with intrinsic rewards." ("Lead" section)
 * "Pleasure is a component of reward, but not all rewards are pleasurable (e.g., money does not elicit pleasure ). Stimuli that are naturally pleasurable, and therefore attractive, are known as intrinsic rewards, whereas stimuli that are attractive and motivate approach behavior, but not inherently pleasurable, are termed extrinsic rewards. Extrinsic rewards are rewarding as a result of a learned association with an intrinsic reward. In other words, extrinsic rewards function as motivational magnets that elicit "wanting", but not "liking" reactions once they have been acquired ." ("Pleasure centers" section)

1. Extrinsic rewards may indeed be pleasurable (and remain pleasurable). Only extrinsic rewards can be higher order rewards (Schultz, p 858) and higher order rewards may elicit pleasure, e.g., water, to a thirsty person (p 855), the sight of a delicious apple (p 864).

Further money may be pleasurable. It invokes anticipatory pleasure. (see below)

In the cited ref, Schultz says: "Pleasure as an unconditioned reward can serve to produce higher order, conditioned [extrinsic] rewards that are also pleasurable . (p 864)" "Rewards have the potential to elicit positive emotions. The foremost emotion evoked by rewards is pleasure.... Water is pleasant for a thirsty person, and food for a hungry one. The rewarding effects of taste are based on the pleasure it evokes. Winning in a big lottery is even more pleasant . (p 855)""... the prevailing reason why particular stimuli, objects, events, situations, and activities are rewarding may be pleasure . This applies first of all to sex ... and to the primary homeostatic rewards of food and liquid, and extends to money ... (p 859)" Similarly Berridge et al. say,"Neuroimaging and neural recording studies of have found that rewards ranging from sweet taste to intravenous cocaine, winning money or a smiling face activate many brain structures... But which of those brain systems actually cause the pleasure of the reward ?""In humans, cocaine, sex, food, or money rewards all activate the ventral pallidum, including the posterior subregion that corresponds to the hedonic hotspot in rats. ... We think ... the firing patterns of these ventral pallidal neurons encode hedonic ‘liking’ for the pleasant sensation, rather than simpler sensory features.    — Berridge, K.C., Robinson, T.E. & Aldridge, J.W. Dissecting components of reward: 'liking', 'wanting', and learning. Current Opinion in Pharmacology, 9, 65-73, 2009." In the introduction of a study coauthored by Schultz:"It is therefore conceivable that monetary rewards act through imagination of rewarding objects that can be acquired through them. Indeed in a recent reward imagination study participants who imagined monetary or other types of secondary rewards activated primary reward regions. However, monetary rewards have become so ubiquitous in our daily life that they can be considered as rewards in their own right. Functional neuroimaging studies using monetary rewards have found the same brain regions as those involved in processing primary rewards also without asking participants to imagine.    —Miyapuram, Krishna P.; Tobler, Philippe N.; Gregorios-Pippas, Lucy; Schultz, Wolfram (2012). 'BOLD responses in reward regions to hypothetical and imaginary monetary rewards'. NeuroImage. 59 (2): 1692–1699." Overlooked was anticipatory pleasure:"" "Consummatory pleasure is experienced while directly engaging in an experience whereas anticipatory pleasure is related to future experiences and is composed of both prediction of eventual reward and momentary pleasure of the anticipation .    — Ritsner, Michael (2014). Anhedonia: A Comprehensive Handbook Volume II: Neuropsychiatric And Physical Disorders. Springer Science & Business Media. p. 211."

"To be clear, we distinguish anticipatory pleasure from similar constructs such as approach motivation (for example) in that anticipatory pleasure is thought to involve the pleasure experienced in anticipation and the ability to image a stimulus. Approach motivation on the other hand is more related to drive, fun seeking and reward responsiveness.    — Gard, David E.; Kring, Ann M.; Gard, Marja Germans; Horan, William P.; Green, Michael F. (2007). 'Anhedonia in Schizophrenia: Distinctions between Anticipatory and Consummatory Pleasure'. Schizophrenia research. 93 (1-3): p. 1088.""'After having experienced its nutritious and pleasantly tasting contents, the apple with its shape and color has become a reinforcer in its own right. As a higher order, conditioned reward, the apple serves all the defining functions of rewards, namely, learning, approach behavior, and pleasure. ... seeing the delicious apple evokes a pleasant feeling .' (Schultz, p 864), and, 'There are also desires for imagined or even impossible rewards... Desire has multiple relations to pleasure; it may be pleasant in itself (I feel a pleasant desire)....' (p 855)."

2. "Extrinsic rewards function as motivational magnets that elicit 'wanting', but not 'liking' reactions once they have been acquired ."

Isn't this characteristic of (unnaturally/recurrent) excessive levels of synaptic dopamine as occurs in addiction, but not of ordinary experiences?

3. Last sentence in lead: The final lead sentence, "Rewards are generally considered more desirable than punishment in modifying behavior." is problematic. (now replaced with cite needed tag) 4. Express some caution about application of animal research to humans and the reverse."Some of the stimuli and events that are pleasurable in humans may not even evoke pleasure in animals but act instead through innate mechanisms. We simply do not know. (Schultz, p 855)""Whether the pleasure circuit—and in particular, the ventral pallidum—works the same way in humans is unclear. Not many people come to the clinic with discrete damage to these structures without injuries in surrounding areas. Thus, it is difficult to assess whether the ventral pallidum and other components in the circuit are essential to the sensation of pleasure in humans.     — Kringelbach, M.L. & Berridge, K.C. 'The joyful mind'. Scientific American, 307(2), 40-45 (p 45), August 2012." — βox73 (৳alk) 02:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The cited ref never mentions rewards (positive reinforcement); it simply says negative punishment is more desirable than positive punishment.
 * What is the significance of being "more desirable" in this article? More desirable suggests more effective in modifying behavior, which is clearly not clear.


 * In relation to extrinsic rewards, and money in particular, currency in and of itself is not pleasurable. If I gave you 50 seashells, you'd probably be like "great, wtf am I going to do with this?" Now, if those seashells suddenly became the global currency, you might feel a mild euphoria from having been randomly given "money", but the money itself would not have pleased you - "winning"/acquiring something that you value a lot did.  Hell, I'd probably be euphoric if I won a billion dollars, but I still don't derive pleasure from having money, withdrawing money from an ATM, picking up money that I own, etc.  In contrast, "winning" a lottery with a pot of 100 pounds of dog shit would probably not induce a euphoria in most people because most people don't value dog shit.  I assume that this type of pleasure from acquiring an extrinsic reward is what is meant by a "higher order reward" associated with an extrinsic reward. It's a rather abstract concept, but I suppose it's probably worth covering this at some point. Anyway, I hope that clears things up.
 * I'm inclined to cite Schultz's paper on the concept of reward in general, but when there's a contradiction between Schultz and Berridge, I'm inclined to go with what Berridge says because he's more of an expert in the area of pleasure neuroscience. Berridge stated in one of his refs (I'll pull the quote tomorrow) something along the lines of an "aura of pleasure" might be associated with anticipation of a reward, but he never outright called it pleasure.  The concept seems very abstract to me because I can't think of a personal example of where I've ever felt pleasure from anticipating something (I can think of cases where I've felt displeasure from having to wait though); however, if you can find a discussion of anticipatory pleasure in one of Berridge's publications, I'd be perfectly fine with including that though.
 * Money is an extrinsic reward that tends to motivate people. Most people want money but don't experience pleasure from having money. This concept of motivation associated with a reward that one wants - regardless of whether or not it's pleasurable - is called incentive salience; high concentrations of synaptic dopamine tend to amplify the amount of "want"/incentive salience for things over the short term, but it's certainly not required. Choosing to override the motivational component of a reward that one "wants" involves a cognitive process called inhibitory control.
 * Yeah, that needs to come out. I didn't even bother verifying that sentence when I was revising the article earlier.  I'm just going to delete it.
 * Berridge's most recent review, which is what the article cites in the section on hedonic hotspots, doesn't suggest that the research on human hedonic hotspots is questionable. I assume the main reason for this is research developments in between 2012 and 2015, particularly as it relates to objectively measurable hedonic reactions in humans and animals.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Berridge's most recent review, which is what the article cites in the section on hedonic hotspots, doesn't suggest that the research on human hedonic hotspots is questionable. I assume the main reason for this is research developments in between 2012 and 2015, particularly as it relates to objectively measurable hedonic reactions in humans and animals.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 03:49, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

.    Anticipatory pleasure exists. Why do people read novels but for the pleasure of imagining the story, anticipating pending events? Berridge found and is developing an important theory of pleasure. It clarifies dopamine function and is perhaps most important in addictions. Yet Berridge's ideas aren't without problems. For example he ponders "dopamine" euphoria, [http://lsa.umich.edu/psych/research&labs/berridge/publications/2015%20Berridge%20&%20Kringelbach%20Pleasure%20systems%20in%20the%20brain%20-%20Neuron.pdf "Another puzzle has been that if dopamine does not cause sensory pleasure, why are dopamine-promoting drugs such as cocaine or methamphetamine so pleasant?". (p 657)] This independently surfaces in a 2013 study showing that "an i.v. dose of amphetamine [which produces significant euphoria does not cause any acute opioid release in healthy human subjects." (abstract / [p 767 ] )] With due respect, we needn't specifically require Berridge's discussion or approval. When such authority enters science, it's no longer science.
 * I agree that pleasure depends on the amount. Of course this is true of anything. 20 mcg of amphetamine or as Schultz mentions, individual drops of water are not likely to produce pleasure. But 20 mg of speed or a mug of cold water to a thirsty man will be pleasing. Having money represents what you can do with it: a night on the town, taking your wife or girl to a fine restaurant, buying a new PC, car, house, a birthday present for your kid, or simply donating to a cause you believe in. These can all be pleasing. We're not talking about euphoria, we're talking about being pleased. A smile can be pleasing. That's all it takes. To most people receiving a C note would be pleasing. That's not winning the lottery but a common amount of money. But what you or I think, is secondary to reliable sources, and they concur that extrinsic rewards including money can be pleasurable. And these are the existing sources. We should find a compromise based on reliable sources. Lacking that money doesn't belong, nor simply excluding pleasure from extrinsic rewards. Can you cite such opposed sources presently?
 * In retrospect, what you mean here is clear if you refer to the behavior. (Considering thirst, wanting and liking are essentially the same.) It comes down to how the terms are defined and used. Schultz considers many primary rewards to be extrinsic rewards, motivation is merged into reward, and intrinsic reward spans from micro to macro. (Why he doesn't grasp that the golden section—though not a bilateral or rotational symmetry—is a proportional symmetry found in nature —including the human body—escapes me.) I'm anxious about neuroscience being hijacked by addiction research which in turn is politically influenced.
 * Another confused sentence is (in Animals vs Humans), "This is when Berridge came up with the incentive salience hypothesis to explain why the dopamine seems to only sometimes control pleasure when in fact that does seem to happen at all."
 * I'll take another, better look at this. Try the published copy.
 * — βox73 (৳alk) 08:45, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * "Money rewards" is not "money". You are misreading the sources. If you want to say "money is pleasurable" you need to find a source that states that directly, not "monetary rewards may be pleasurable".  Edit: I have no problem with the statement: "Money is not inherently pleasurable; however, higher order monetary rewards can be pleasurable."  If you want to use that, go ahead and add it.  I doubt that the vast majority of readers will understand what a higher order monetary reward is though.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 15:54, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * 2nd edit: I just want to clarify that, in my examples in my first reply about money, I wasn't attempting to make a point about the quantity of money. I was using a large amount in the example simply because unexpectedly acquiring a stupidly large sum of money would produce a euphoria in just about anyone because it's a massive unexpected reward of very high personal value. The same thing type of response might occur with individuals who earn a low income and are given only $20, but certainly not someone who earns say $1 million per month. Similarly, I would still not experience pleasure from picking up a $1 billion check that I own, withdrawing a figurative 1 billion dollar bill from a bank, or from interacting with said billion dollars that I previously "won" in any other manner.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Nor would you experience pleasure moving food from one place to another. Monetary reward. Given a choice between winnings in money or food I'd choose money. Money gives choice of what and when. We don't say food reward because food is pleasing to consume. The abundant pleasure invites (a behavioral) addiction. The pleasures of monetary reward produce gambling. Another behavioral addiction is called shopping addiction aka compulsive spending. The alludes to the pleasure of buying things, the essential function of money. It seems there would be no pleasure in winning money if there were no pleasure in using money. There is also the pleasure of imagination of what money can realize. It is the same "as if" arena where reading novels and sexual fantasies evoke pleasure. βox73 (৳alk) 13:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Dopamine does mediate pleasure; it just doesn't mediate all pleasure. The VP hotspot is activated primarily via mu opioid receptor activation; the NAcc shell hotspot is activated primarily by dopamine. The other hotspot(s) may involve additional neurochemicals.  It might help to read Dopamine for contextual reference on the role of dopamine in reward cognition; both  (who is a neuroscientist) and I rewrote that section and edited portions of each other's work in order to bring that article to GA status.

I'll do that. βox73 (৳alk) 13:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I deleted the sentence that you pointed out because it's factually incorrect. That whole section needs work.   Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 18:11, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

You're the go to person for Berridge so I concur. βox73 (৳alk) 13:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * In regard to anticipatory pleasure, as an alternative to citing Berridge, I'm okay with citing a review that cites a primary source that objectively studied anticipatory pleasure in humans. Failing that, we're basically just saying that "author X says such-and-such phenomenon [anticipatory pleasure] is a real thing" while neither we nor they provide evidence that the phenomenon is real.  I.e., how can we say for sure that what some authors refer to as anticipatory pleasure isn't simply some other aspect of reward which is being misattributed as a form of pleasure?  This is why I'm hesitant to cover abstract concepts like that in articles without citing or at least knowing about some form of concrete underlying evidence that supports it.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 19:16, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll dig a bit more. βox73 (৳alk) 13:42, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

anticipatory pleasure
If there's some neuroscientific basis to this clause, re-add it to the article and cover the neuroscience context (i.e., something related to hedonic hotspots). If there isn't, add it to the pleasure article. It's off-topic to cover types of pleasure in a section on pleasure centers without discussing how they related to pleasure centers (e.g., ecstasy, orgasm, gustatory pleasure, tactile pleasure, etc. are not mentioned because there's nothing to be said at the moment about most of these forms of pleasure as they relate to activity within different hedonic hotspots). The only reason a discussion of pleasure was introduced there at all is because the lead needs to contain content covered in the body of the article, so intrinsic/extrinsic rewards are covered again there."Further, anticipation (i.e., anticipatory pleasure) or imagination of a reward may itself be pleasurable."  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 00:06, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Ok to archive?
Hey there. I'd like to archive a few sections on this talk page since it's starting to become fairly lengthy. Is there anything in this section that hasn't been addressed to your satisfaction?  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 20:47, 17 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Hey pal, go for it. I did read a new review using "anticipatory pleasure" but it was specific to schizophrenia and largely synonymous with "wanting" even referring to Berridge. The earth didn't move. So archive it! — βox73 (৳alk) 22:07, 17 March 2017 (UTC)

Citation style
Please don't change the ref formatting in this article like you did in this edit. The previous ref formatting uses the vancouver style, which I've used in this article and a number of other articles that I routinely import citations from. The authors now display with a comma between their last name and first initials, which isn't consistent with the vancouver citation style. The other changes to the reference don't appear to produce any inconsistencies when they render, but the presence of that comma in the author list in some references but not others is sufficient to prevent an article from being promoted to an FA (see FA criterion 2c).  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:04, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Edit: My bad, I just noticed it renders with a comma between the first initials+last name and a semicolon between authors; the vancouver style uses a comma instead of a semicolon between author names, so that semicolon is a 2nd difference between the two citation formats.  Seppi  333  (Insert 2¢) 22:07, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry about that and thanks for cluing me in. My intent however wasn't to reformat the ref per se but to change to the original Scientific American magazine source. The entire SciAm text is online, the pages numbered, and illustrated. Linking to Berridge's copy seems fair use as he is the co-author. (Yeah to his strong open source policy bent!)
 * Otherwise (in refs only) I've been adding paragraph indents in long quotes to ease their reading. What's your take on this? Does it help? (Off topic: Your underlining in the amphetamine article contraction is best; I believe it agrees with APA style too.)
 * Again, thanks for pointing out the Vancouver style issue. — βox73 (৳alk) 00:52, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Simultaneous activation speculation
That speculation has no business being in an encyclopedia. Regardless of who said it, it is speculative, more so than anything else on this page. It is not noteworthy, and does not deserve a place in WP.Petergstrom (talk) 21:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)