4.7 Review

Common and distinct networks underlying reward valence and processing stages: A meta-analysis of functional neuroimaging studies

Journal

NEUROSCIENCE AND BIOBEHAVIORAL REVIEWS
Volume 35, Issue 5, Pages 1219-1236

Publisher

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2010.12.012

Keywords

Meta-analysis; Reward; Nucleus accumbens; Orbitofrontal cortex; Anterior cingulate cortex; Anterior insula

Funding

  1. Chinese Academy of Sciences
  2. NARSAD
  3. NIH [R21MH083164]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

To better understand the reward circuitry in human brain, we conducted activation likelihood estimation (ALE) and parametric voxel-based meta-analyses (PVM) on 142 neuroimaging studies that examined brain activation in reward-related tasks in healthy adults. We observed several core brain areas that participated in reward-related decision making, including the nucleus accumbens (NAcc), caudate, putamen, thalamus, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), bilateral anterior insula, anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and posterior cingulate cortex (PCC), as well as cognitive control regions in the inferior parietal lobule and prefrontal cortex (PFC). The NAcc was commonly activated by both positive and negative rewards across various stages of reward processing (e.g., anticipation, outcome, and evaluation). In addition, the medial OFC and PCC preferentially responded to positive rewards, whereas the ACC, bilateral anterior insula, and lateral PFC selectively responded to negative rewards. Reward anticipation activated the ACC, bilateral anterior insula, and brain stem, whereas reward outcome more significantly activated the NAcc, medial OFC, and amygdala. Neurobiological theories of reward-related decision making should therefore take distributed and interrelated representations of reward valuation and valence assessment into account. (C) 2010 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available