4.4 Review

Dopaminergic modulation of reward discounting in healthy rats: a systematic review and meta-analysis

期刊

PSYCHOPHARMACOLOGY
卷 238, 期 3, 页码 711-723

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00213-020-05723-5

关键词

Dopamine; Pharmacology; Discounting; Delay; Probability; Effort; Decision-making; Meta-analysis

资金

  1. National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship
  2. NSF [DGE-1644868]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Analyzing data from 1549 individual rats, it was found that dopamine drugs can decrease reward discounting, with specific drugs and study design features possibly influencing their effects.
Rationale Although numerous studies have suggested that pharmacological alteration of the dopamine (DA) system modulates reward discounting, these studies have produced inconsistent findings. Objectives Here, we conducted a systematic review and pre-registered meta-analysis to evaluate DA drug-mediated effects on reward discounting of time, probability, and effort costs in studies of healthy rats. This produced a total of 1343 articles to screen for inclusion/exclusion. From the literature, we identified 117 effects from approximately 1549 individual rats. Methods Using random effects with maximum-likelihood estimation, we meta-analyzed placebo-controlled drug effects for (1) DA D1-like receptor agonists and (2) antagonists, (3) D2-like agonists and (4) antagonists, and (5) DA transporter-modulating drugs. Results Meta-analytic effects showed that DAT-modulating drugs decreased reward discounting. While D1-like and D2-like antagonists both increased discounting, agonist drugs for those receptors had no significant effect on discounting behavior. A number of these effects appear contingent on study design features like cost type, rat strain, and microinfusion location. Conclusions These findings suggest a nuanced relationship between DA and discounting behavior and urge caution when drawing generalizations about the effects of pharmacologically manipulating dopamine on reward-based decision-making.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据