Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort.

Abstract

There are numerous problems with the hypothesis that brain dopamine (DA) systems, particularly in the nucleus accumbens, directly mediate the rewarding or primary motivational characteristics of natural stimuli such as food. Research and theory related to the functions of mesolimbic DA are undergoing a substantial conceptual restructuring, with the traditional emphasis on hedonia and primary reward yielding to other concepts and lines of inquiry. The present review is focused upon the involvement of nucleus accumbens DA in behavioral activation and effort-related processes. Viewed from the framework of behavioral economics, the effects of accumbens DA depletions and antagonism on food-reinforced behavior are highly dependent upon the work requirements of the instrumental task, and DA depleted rats are more sensitive to increases in response costs (i.e., ratio requirements). Moreover, interference with accumbens DA transmission exerts a powerful influence over effort-related choice behavior. Rats with accumbens DA depletions or antagonism reallocate their instrumental behavior away from food-reinforced tasks that have high response requirements, and instead these rats select a less-effortful type of food-seeking behavior. Nucleus accumbens DA and adenosine interact in the regulation of effort-related functions, and other brain structures (anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, ventral pallidum) also are involved. Studies of the brain systems regulating effort-based processes may have implications for understanding drug abuse, as well as energy-related disorders such as psychomotor slowing, fatigue or anergia in depression and other neurological disorders.

Full text

Page 1

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 1
BEHAVIORAL NEUROSCIENCE
REVIEW ARTICLE
published: 07 September 2009
doi: 10.3389/neuro.08.013.2009
and emotional effects of reinforcing stimuli (Everitt and Robbins,
2005; Salamone et al., 2005, 2007).
Against the backdrop of these conceptual and terminological
issues, there is a tremendous weight of empirical evidence that
has built up against the various iterations of the DA hypothesis
of “reward”. It is somewhat ironic that the processes most directly
linked to the use of the term reward (i.e., primary motivation,
subjective pleasure) are the ones that have proven to be most
problematic in terms of demonstrating the involvement of mes-
olimbic DA (Salamone et al., 2007). For example, low doses of DA
antagonists and depletions of nucleus accumbens DA have been
shown to produce effects that do not closely resemble extinction
(Salamone, 1986; Salamone et al., 1995, 1997; Rick et al., 2006),
pre-feeding (Salamone et al., 1991; Aberman and Salamone, 1999),
or appetite suppressant drugs (Cousins et al., 1994; Salamone et al.,
2002; Sink et al., 2008). Although it is well known that whole fore-
brain DA depletions can produce aphagia (i.e., lack of eating), it
is DA depletions in the lateral or ventrolateral caudate/putamen,
rather than the nucleus accumbens, which have most conclusively
been linked to this effect (Ungerstedt, 1971; Dunnett and Iversen,
1982; Salamone et al., 1993a). It has been shown repeatedly that
nucleus accumbens DA depletions or antagonism do not substan-
tially impair appetite for food, or produce a general disruption
of primary food motivation (Ungerstedt, 1971; Koob et al., 1978;
Bakshi and Kelley, 1991; Salamone et al., 1993a). In DA defi cient
mice, restoration of DA production in caudate putamen, but not
nucleus accumbens, was able to rescue feeding behavior (Szczypka
LIMITATIONS OF THE REWARD HYPOTHESIS OF
DOPAMINERGIC FUNCTION
The last several years have seen substantial theoretical develop-
ments related to the hypothesized behavioral functions of nucleus
accumbens dopamine (DA). It has become evident to many investi-
gators that there are conceptual limitations and empirical problems
with the traditional DA hypothesis of “reward” (Baldo and Kelley,
2007; Barbano and Cador, 2007; Salamone et al., 1997, 2005, 2007;
Salamone, in press). Even the use of the term “reward” itself often
is problematic (Cannon and Bseikri, 2004; Salamone et al., 2005;
Salamone, 2006; Sanchis-Segura and Spanagel, 2006; Yin et al.,
2008). Researchers rarely defi ne what they mean by “reward” when
they are using it to describe a psychological process; some use it as
though it were a synonym for “reinforcement”, or in reference to
“appetite” or “primary motivation”, while still others employ it as a
code word to mean “pleasure”. In some papers, the word “reward”
seems to be used as a rather monolithic, all- encompassing term
that refers to any and all aspects of appetitive learning, motivation
and emotion, whether conditioned or unconditioned. Used in this
way, the term reward is a rather blunt instrument. These problems
are not merely semantic, as it is diffi cult to test a hypothesis which
maintains that a neurotransmitter mediates such an ill-defi ned
set of functions. It has been suggested that it is advantageous to
maintain the distinction between the terms reward and reinforce-
ment; with this usage, reinforcement refers more directly to instru-
mental learning mechanisms (Wise, 2004; Sanchis-Segura and
Spanagel, 2006), while reward connotes the primary motivational
Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
John D. Salamone*, Merce Correa†, Andrew M. Farrar, Eric J. Nunes and Marta Pardo†
Department of Psychology, University of Connecticut, Storrs, CT, USA
There are numerous problems with the hypothesis that brain dopamine (DA) systems, particularly
in the nucleus accumbens, directly mediate the rewarding or primary motivational characteristics
of natural stimuli such as food. Research and theory related to the functions of mesolimbic DA
are undergoing a substantial conceptual restructuring, with the traditional emphasis on hedonia
and primary reward yielding to other concepts and lines of inquiry. The present review is focused
upon the involvement of nucleus accumbens DA in behavioral activation and effort-related
processes. Viewed from the framework of behavioral economics, the effects of accumbens DA
depletions and antagonism on food-reinforced behavior are highly dependent upon the work
requirements of the instrumental task, and DA depleted rats are more sensitive to increases
in response costs (i.e., ratio requirements). Moreover, interference with accumbens DA
transmission exerts a powerful infl uence over effort-related choice behavior. Rats with accumbens
DA depletions or antagonism reallocate their instrumental behavior away from food-reinforced
tasks that have high response requirements, and instead these rats select a less-effortful type
of food-seeking behavior. Nucleus accumbens DA and adenosine interact in the regulation of
effort-related functions, and other brain structures (anterior cingulate cortex, amygdala, ventral
pallidum) also are involved. Studies of the brain systems regulating effort-based processes may
have implications for understanding drug abuse, as well as energy-related disorders such as
psychomotor slowing, fatigue or anergia in depression and other neurological disorders.
Keywords: nucleus accumbens, motivation, reward, reinforcement, activation, anergia, psychomotor slowing,
depression
Edited by:
Paul Phillips, University of Washington,
USA
Reviewed by:
Daeyeol Lee, Yale University, USA
Kent Berridge, University of Michigan,
USA
*Correspondence:
John D. Salamone, Board of Trustees
Distinguished Professor, Division of
Behavioral Neuroscience,
Department of Psychology,
University of Connecticut, Storrs,
CT 06269-1020, USA.
e-mail: john.salamone@uconn.edu
†Present address: Area de Psicobiol.,
Dept. Psic., Universitat de Jaume I,
Castelló, 12071, Spain.

Page 2

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 2
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
processes, with a special emphasis on effort-based choice behavior
that depends upon cost/benefi t analyses.
BEHAVIORAL ACTIVATION, EXERTION OF EFFORT,
AND NUCLEUS ACCUMBENS DA
Even as the popularity of the DA hypothesis of reward was growing
during the 1980s, it was becoming apparent that there were alter-
native conceptual frameworks available for organizing what was
known about the behavioral functions of DA systems, particularly
mesolimbic DA. Mogenson et al. (1980) suggested that nucleus
accumbens acted as a functional interface between the limbic sys-
tem and the motor system, facilitating the ability of information
related to emotion and motivation to impinge upon the neural
systems involved in the instigation of action. It had been empha-
sized for several decades that behavioral activation, i.e., the vigor,
persistence and effort seen in the pursuit of motivational stimuli,
and the heightened activity induced by conditioned stimuli that
predict reinforcers, was a fundamental aspect of motivation (e.g.,
Cofer and Appley, 1964). Several investigators suggested that DA
systems were involved in behavioral activation. DA antagonists
or accumbens DA depletions were shown to suppress the activi-
ties such as excessive drinking, wheel running, and locomotion
that are induced by scheduled presentation of food (Robbins and
Koob, 1980; Wallace et al., 1983; Salamone, 1986, 1988). It also
was reported that the effects of DA antagonists on reinforced
behavior interacted powerfully with the kinetic requirements of
the instrumental response. For example, doses of DA antagonists
that suppressed reinforced lever pressing had minimal effects on
reinforced nose poking behavior (Ettenberg et al., 1981; Mekarski,
1988). Although 0.1 mg/kg haloperidol severely reduced respond-
ing on a fi xed ratio (FR) 20 schedule of lever pressing, a dose four
times that size had no effect on the reinforced response of simply
being in proximity to the food dish on a fi xed interval 30 s schedule
(Salamone, 1986). As this research was being reported, investiga-
tors began to employ economic concepts, such as exertion of effort
and cost-benefi t analyses, to describe the behavioral functions of
accumbens DA. Neill and Justice (1981) hypothesized that injection
of amphetamine into nucleus accumbens could be increasing the
“willingness” of rats to exert effort to obtain a given level of rein-
forcement. In a contemporary review of the behavioral functions
of DA systems (Salamone, 1987), it was noted that DA in nucleus
accumbens could be involved in the “exertion of effort”, and it
was suggested that future experiments could “offer animals choices
between various reinforcers that are associated with operants of
varying diffi culty” (p. 602) so that researchers could determine if
the allocation of behavioral resources could be biased toward or
away from more or less effortful responses by administration of
dopaminergic drugs.
This recognition of dopaminergic involvement in the exertion
of effort, and effort-based choices related to cost benefi t analyses,
fi t nicely with an emerging emphasis in the behavioral literature
on work, response costs or constraints, and economic models of
operant behavior. Several behavioral investigators have emphasized
how response costs or constraints affect operant response output
(Staddon, 1979; Kaufman, 1980; Kaufman et al., 1980; Foltin, 1991).
Collier and colleagues studied how work requirements, such as
the number of lever presses necessary for obtaining food, could
et al., 2001). In summarizing their fi ndings that injections of DA
D1 or D2 family antagonists into either the core or the shell sub-
regions of nucleus accumbens impaired locomotion and rearing,
but did not suppress food intake, Baldo et al. (2002) stated that
DA receptor blockade “did not abolish the primary motivation to
eat” (p. 176).
Furthermore, the idea that nucleus accumbens DA mediates
the pleasure associated with positive reinforcers has been strongly
challenged (Berridge, 2007; Salamone et al., 2007; Berridge and
Kringlebach, 2008). Interference with accumbens DA transmission
does not impair appetitive taste reactivity for sucrose (Berridge, 2007;
Berridge and Kringlebach, 2008). Several studies in humans have
reported that DA antagonists did not blunt the subjective eupho-
ria produced by drugs of abuse (Gawin, 1986; Brauer and De Wit,
1997; Haney et al., 2001; Nann-Vernotica et al., 2001; Wachtel et al.,
2002). Moreover, the potential role of DA systems in instrumental
behavior or learning is not limited to situations involving appeti-
tive motivation. There is considerable evidence that striatal mecha-
nisms in general, and mesolimbic DA in particular, also participate
in aspects of aversive learning and aversive motivation (Salamone,
1994; Munro and Kokkinidis, 1997; Blazquez et al., 2002; Pezze and
Feldon, 2004; Delgado et al., 2008; Faure et al., 2008; Martinez et al.,
2008). Although imaging studies often are used to support the idea
that nucleus accumbens mediates pleasure (e.g., Sarchiapone et al.,
2006; Wacker et al., 2009), this appears to be oversimplifi ed; indeed,
research employing various imaging methods has demonstrated that
the human nucleus accumbens also responds to stress, aversion and
hyperarousal/irritability (Liberzon et al., 1999; Jensen et al., 2003;
Pavic, 2003; Phan et al., 2004; Pruessner et al., 2004; Levita et al.,
2009). Physiological and neurochemical studies in animals clearly
indicate that DA neuron activity is not simply tied to the delivery
of primary reinforcers or pleasurable stimuli. Rather, VTA neuron
activity and DA release can be activated by a number of different
appetitive and aversive conditions (McCullough and Salamone,
1992; McCullough et al., 1993; Guarraci and Kapp, 1999; Roitman
et al., 2004; Young, 2004; Anstrom and Woodward, 2005; Broom and
Yamamoto, 2005; Marinelli et al., 2005; Schultz, 2007a,b; Brischoux
et al., 2009), with changes seen across varying time scales, including
tonic, slow phasic and fast phasic signals (Salamone, 1996; Salamone
et al., 2007; Schultz, 2007a,b; Salamone, in press; see also Lapish
et al., 2007 for a discussion of various time scales associated with the
postsynaptic effects of DA release and DA receptor stimulation).
Of course, one would not want to throw the baby out with
the bathwater. It is apparent that mesolimbic DA participates
in several complex functions related to aspects of instrumen-
tal behavior, learning and incentive motivation, and pavlovian/
instrumental interactions (Wise, 2004; Everitt and Robbins, 2005;
Kelley et al., 2005; Salamone et al., 2005, 2007; Berridge, 2007;
Robbins and Everitt, 2007; Redgrave et al., 2008; Yin et al., 2008).
The more diffi cult aspect of research and theory in this area is to
ask – which specifi c aspects? Exploration of these diverse areas
of dopaminergic function has become a rich and fruitful area
of inquiry. Indeed, this literature is so extensive that a thorough
review of the behavioral functions of nucleus accumbens DA is
beyond the scope of the present article (see Salamone et al., 2007).
For the purposes of this special issue, the present review will
focus upon the role of nucleus accumbens DA in effort-related

Page 3

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 3
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
appears that rats with accumbens DA depletions are more sensitive
than control animals to the price of the food reinforcers. Of course,
rats do not use currency to purchase operant pellets; rather, it has
been argued that an operant procedure is more of a barter system,
in which the rat trades its work (or reductions in leisure) for a com-
modity (Rachlin, 2003). Thus, another way of describing this effect
of impaired DA transmission is to say that rats with accumbens DA
depletions are more sensitive than control animals to work-related
response costs, or that they are less likely to trade high levels of work
for food. In another study (Salamone et al., 2001), the increased
effects of accumbens DA depletions with increasing ratio require-
ments were observed when rats were tested across a broader range
of ratio schedules as high as FR300, even when the overall relation
serve as determinants of response output and affect consumption
parameters (Collier and Jennings, 1969; Johnson and Collier, 1987).
Economic models of operant behavior have emphasized how a
number of factors, including not only reinforcement value, but
also conditions related to the characteristics of the instrumental
response, can determine behavioral output (Lea, 1978; Allison,
1981, 1993; Bickel et al., 2000). Hursh et al. (1988) suggested that, in
terms of behavioral economics, the price of food reinforcement as a
commodity is a cost/benefi t ratio expressed as the effort expended
per unit of food value consumed. Optimal foraging theory was
proposed to account for the observation that the amount of effort
or time expended to obtain motivational stimuli was an important
determinant of foraging choice (Krebs, 1977), an idea that is still
very infl uential in the ethology research today (e.g., Hengeveld
et al., 2009).
Over the last two decades, several lines of evidence have con-
verged to strengthen the original observation that the effects of
interference with DA transmission interact powerfully with the
work requirements of an instrumental task. One of the ways of
controlling work requirements in an operant schedule is to vary the
ratio requirement (i.e., the number of times the animal must press
the lever to receive a unit of reinforcement). The effects of the DA
antagonist haloperidol on food-reinforced behavior were shown to
be dependent upon the particular ratio schedule that was used [i.e.,
FR1 vs. progressive ratio; Caul and Brindle (2001)]. Accumbens DA
depletions also produce effects that interact powerfully with the ratio
requirement of the schedule employed. Ishiwari et al. (2004) found
that accumbens DA depletions that substantially impaired FR5 lever
pressing had no signifi cant effect on FR1 performance. Aberman
and Salamone (1999) systematically studied a wide range of ratio
schedules (FR1, 4, 16, and 64) to assess the effects of accumbens
DA depletions. While FR1 performance was not affected by DA
depletion, and FR4 responding was only transiently and mildly sup-
pressed, the schedules with large ratio requirements (i.e., FR16 and
FR64) were severely impaired (Figure 1A). In fact, DA depleted ani-
mals responding on the FR64 schedule showed signifi cantly fewer
responses than those responding on the FR16 schedule (Aberman
and Salamone, 1999). This pattern indicates that accumbens DA
depletions exacerbate an effect known as ratio strain. In untreated
animals, the overall relation between ratio size and response out-
put is inverted-U shaped. Up to a point, as ratio requirements get
larger, animals adjust to this challenge by increasing response out-
put. However, if the ratio requirement is high enough (i.e., if the
cost is too high), the animal reaches the point at which additional
responses being required actually tend to suppress responding. For
normal rats, responding at levels of FR64, FR100 or higher, even if
there is only one 45 mg food pellet being delivered, does not seem
to be problematic. A completely different function is shown by
rats with accumbens DA depletions, which are much more sensi-
tive to the size of the ratio requirement. In behavioral economic
terms, this pattern can be described as refl ecting an increase in the
elasticity of demand for food reinforcement (Salamone et al., 1997;
Aberman and Salamone, 1999; see Figure 1B). The term elasticity
is widely used in economics, but price elasticity of demand refers
to the sensitivity of consumption to changes in price (Vuchinich
and Heather, 2003). Thus, if the ratio requirement is analogous to
the price of the commodity (in this case, reinforcement pellets), it
Fixed Ratio Requirement
14 1664
Lever Presses
0
500
1000
1500
2000
2500
3000
3500
Vehicle Control
DA Depleted
A
B
Fixed Ratio Requirement
14 16 64
Food Consumed (pellets)
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
Vehicle Control
DA Depleted
FIGURE 1 | This fi gure shows the effect of ratio requirement on the number
of lever presses emitted and operant pellets consumed in rats with
accumbens DA depletions compared to rats in the vehicle control group.
Figure (A) is re-drawn based upon Aberman and Salamone (1999); these data
are depicted in terms of number of responses, as in the original article. For (B),
the data are represented as number of operant pellets consumed. Each data
point shown is the mean value from each group at each ratio level. Although
comparable levels of consumption in DA depleted and control groups were
seen with the FR1 schedule, DA-depleted rats showed markedly reduced
consumption relative to the control group at higher ratio levels.

Page 4

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 4
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
during which the threshold cost expenditure to obtain the reward
is decreased (Phillips et al., 2007).
In discussing the effects of dopaminergic manipulations on
ratio performance, it is useful to mention the term “reinforcement
effi cacy”, which is sometimes used to describe the effects of drug
manipulations on progressive ratio performance. With progressive
ratio schedules, the ratio requirement increases as successive ratios
are completed, and the “break point” is said to occur at the point at
which the animal essentially ceases to respond. One can operation-
ally defi ne reinforcement effi cacy in terms of the break point in a
progressive ratio schedule (and also by measuring ratio strain in
rats responding across different FR schedules). The determination
of reinforcement effi cacy can be a very useful tool for character-
izing some of the fundamental reinforcing actions of drugs that are
self-administered, and for comparing self-administration behavior
across different substances or classes of substances (e.g., Richardson
and Roberts, 1996; Marinelli et al., 1998; Woolverton and Ranaldi,
2002). Used in this manner, reinforcement effi cacy is essentially being
employed as an empirical descriptor of a particular behavioral out-
come. Nevertheless, given the terminological problems mentioned
above, it is worth emphasizing that the term “reinforcement effi cacy”
should not be used simply as a replacement for “reward”, nor should
progressive ratio breakpoints be viewed as necessarily providing some
direct and unambiguous measure related to the subjective pleasure
produced by the stimulus (Salamone, 2006). Changes in progressive
ratio break points can refl ect more than just changes in the appetitive
motivational properties of a reinforcing stimulus (Richardson and
Roberts, 1996; Hamill et al., 1999). For example, changing the kinetic
requirements of the instrumental response (e.g., increasing the height
of the lever) was shown to decrease progressive ratio break points
(Skjoldager et al., 1993; Schmelzeis and Mittleman, 1996). Although
some researchers have maintained that the break point provides a
direct measure of the appetitive motivational characteristics of a
stimulus, it is, as explicitly stated in a classic review by Stewart (1974),
more directly a measure of how much work the organism will do
in order to obtain that stimulus. Progressive ratio break points and
measures of ratio strain are essentially outcomes that result from
effort-related decision making processes. The animal is making a
cost/benefi t choice about whether or not to continue to respond,
based partly on factors related to the reinforce itself, but also upon
the work-related response costs and time constraints imposed by
the ratio schedule. For these reasons, interpretations of the actions
of drugs or lesions on progressive ratio break points should be done
with caution, as should be the case for any individual task. A drug
that alters the break point could do so for many different reasons; it
may be affecting functions related to the processing of reward value,
or alternatively it could be affecting exertion of effort, or decision
making processes.
RESPONSE ALLOCATION, EFFORT-RELATED CHOICE
BEHAVIOR, AND NUCLEUS ACCUMBENS DA
The ability to exert effort, sustain work, overcome obstacles, and attain
access to motivationally relevant stimuli is necessary for survival. But
it is only part of the story. In a complex environment, which affords
many opportunities for obtaining signifi cant stimuli, and multiple
paths for accessing them, organisms must make choices. The vari-
ables that need to be evaluated to make these decisions are complex
between lever pressing and food delivered per lever press was kept
constant (i.e., FR50, one pellet every 50 responses; FR100, two pel-
lets every 100 responses; FR200, four pellets every 200 responses;
FR300, six pellets every 300 responses; Salamone et al., 2001). Thus,
both the magnitude and the organization of the ratio requirement
appear to be critical determinants of the sensitivity of an operant
schedule to the effects of accumbens DA depletions.
In order to be sure that these results refl ected the infl uence of
ratio size, as opposed to other variables such as time, additional
studies examined the effects of accumbens DA depletions on tandem
schedules, in which a ratio requirement was attached to an interval
requirement. In a conventional variable interval (VI) schedule, a
time interval must elapse before the fi rst response is reinforced,
and the particular time interval varies around an average value. A
tandem VI/FR schedule has an additional ratio requirement attached
to the interval. For example, with a tandem VI 30 s/FR5 schedule, the
animal is reinforced for the fi fth response after the interval elapses,
rather than the fi rst. In this way, one can vary the ratio require-
ment of a schedule while keeping the programmed time intervals
the same. Research employing tandem VI/FR schedules with vary-
ing combinations (e.g., VI 30 s/FR5, VI 60 s/FR10, VI 120 s/FR10)
has yielded a consistent pattern; accumbens DA depletions do not
impair overall response output in rats responding on the conven-
tional VI schedules (i.e., those requiring only one response after the
interval), but do substantially reduce responding on the correspond-
ing VI schedule with the higher ratio requirement attached (Correa
et al., 2002; Mingote et al., 2005). These results are consistent with
research showing that accumbens DA antagonism did not impair
performance on a progressive interval task (Wakabayashi et al.,
2004), and suggest that interval requirements per se do not pose
a severe constraint to rats with compromised DA transmission in
nucleus accumbens. This serves to underscore the critical impor-
tance of ratio requirements as providing a work-related challenge
to rats with accumbens DA depletions or antagonism.
In summarizing these results, Salamone and Correa (2002)
stated that nucleus accumbens DA depletions appear to have two
major effects: (1) they reduce the response-enhancing effects that
moderate-size ratio requirements have on operant responding (i.e.,
the ascending limb of the function relating ratio requirement to
response output), and (2) they enhance the response-suppress-
ing effects that very large ratios have on operant responding (i.e.,
the descending limb of the function, enhancing ratio strain).
Furthermore, fi ner grained analyses of detailed patterns of respond-
ing reveal more insights into the behavioral manifestations of
accumbens DA depletions. Accumbens DA depletions produce a
slight reduction in the local rate of responding, as indicated by the
distribution of inter-response times (Salamone et al., 1993b, 1999;
Mingote et al., 2005). In addition, they enhance pauses in respond-
ing (Salamone et al., 1993b; Mingote et al., 2005). The latter may
indicate a fragmentation in the pattern of responding (Mingote
et al., 2005), a reduction in the ability to sustain uninterrupted
response output, or a lack of engagement in the task (Nicola, 2007).
Recently, computational approaches have been used to analyze these
effects of accumbens DA depletions on response rate (e.g., Niv et al.,
2007; Phillips et al., 2007). This relation between response output
and DA function has been interpreted to mean that DA release in
nucleus accumbens could provide a window of opportunistic drive

Page 5

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 5
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
and multidimensional, but among the most important are those
involving cost/benefi t assessments based upon effort and reinforce-
ment value (Salamone and Correa, 2002; Salamone et al., 2003, 2005,
2007; van den Bos et al., 2006; Walton et al., 2006). Considerable
evidence indicates that nucleus accumbens DA, along with other
transmitters and structures, participates in the overall circuitry that
regulates effort-based choice behavior (Salamone et al., 2003, 2005,
2007; Floresco et al., 2008a; Hauber and Sommer, 2009).
One of the procedures that has been used to assess the contri-
bution of accumbens DA to response allocation and effort-related
choice behavior is a task that offers rats the option of either lever
pressing to obtain a relatively preferred food (e.g., Bioserve pellets;
usually obtained on a FR5 schedule), or approaching and consum-
ing a less preferred food (lab chow) that is concurrently available
in the chamber. Well trained rats under baseline conditions typi-
cally get most of their food by lever pressing, and consume only
small quantities of chow (Salamone et al., 1991). Low-to-moder-
ate doses of DA antagonists, which block either D1 or D2 family
receptor subtypes, produce a substantial alteration of response
allocation in rats performing on this task. The DA antagonists
cis-fl upenthixol, haloperidol, raclopride, eticlopride, SCH 23390,
SKF83566, and ecopipam all decreased lever pressing for food
but substantially increased intake of the concurrently available
chow (Salamone et al., 1991, 1996, 2002; Cousins et al., 1994; Sink
et al., 2008; Worden et al., 2009). The use of this task for assessing
effort-related choice behavior has been validated in many ways. For
example, the low dose of haloperidol that produced the shift from
lever pressing to chow intake (0.1 mg/kg) did not affect total food
intake or alter preference between these two specifi c foods in free-
feeding choice tests (Salamone et al., 1991). Although DA antago-
nists have been shown to reduce FR5 lever pressing and increase
chow intake, appetite suppressants from different classes, includ-
ing amphetamine (Cousins et al., 1994), fenfl uramine (Salamone
et al., 2002), and cannabinoid CB1 antagonists (Sink et al., 2008),
failed to increase chow intake at doses that suppressed lever press-
ing. Similarly, pre-feeding to reduce food motivation was shown
to suppress both lever pressing and chow intake (Salamone et al.,
1991). Furthermore, attachment of higher ratio requirements (up
to FR20) caused animals that were not drug treated to shift from
lever pressing to chow intake (Salamone et al., 1997), indicating that
this task is sensitive to work load. Together with other results, these
fi ndings demonstrate that interference with DA transmission does
not simply reduce appetite, but does act to alter response allocation
between alternative sources of food that can be obtained through
different instrumental responses.
The shift from lever pressing to chow intake in rats performing on
this task is associated with DA depletions in nucleus accumbens, but
not the neostriatum. Although it has been suggested that caudate/
putamen DA may have some types of motivational functions related
to feeding (Palmiter, 2007), DA depletions in anteroventromedial
neostriatum, which is dorsal to nucleus accumbens, had no behav-
ioral effect, while ventrolateral neostriatal DA depletions produced
severe motor impairments that merely decreased both lever press-
ing and feeding (Cousins et al., 1993). In contrast, decreases in lever
pressing and increases in chow intake occur as a result of accumbens
DA depletions, as well as intra-accumbens injections of D1 or D2
antagonists (Salamone et al., 1991; Cousins et al., 1993; Cousins
and Salamone, 1994; Sokolowski and Salamone, 1998; Koch et al.,
2000; Nowend et al., 2001). The shift from lever pressing to chow
intake on this task has been shown to occur in rats if D1 or D2
family antagonist are injected into the medial core, lateral core, or
dorsal shell subregions of the accumbens (Salamone et al., 1991;
Nowend et al., 2001). Thus, although lever pressing is decreased by
accumbens DA antagonism or depletions, the rats show a compen-
satory reallocation of behavior and select a new path to an alterna-
tive food source. Consistent with these effects observed in rats that
have impaired DA transmission, DA transporter knockdown mice,
which have enhanced DA transmission, show increased selection
of lever pressing relative to chow intake when tested with this task
(Cagniard et al., 2006).
Salamone et al. (1994) also developed a T-maze procedure in
order to assess the effects of DA antagonists and accumbens DA
depletions on effort-related decision making. With this procedure,
the two choice arms of the maze can have different reinforcement
densities (e.g., four vs. two food pellets, or four vs. zero food pel-
lets), and under some conditions a 44-cm barrier can be placed in
the arm with the higher density of food reinforcement to present
an effort-related challenge to the rat. When no barrier is placed in
the arm with the high reinforcement density, rats mostly choose
that arm, and neither haloperidol nor accumbens DA depletion
alters their response choice (Salamone, 1994). When the arm with
the barrier contained four pellets, but the other arm contained no
pellets, rats with accumbens DA depletions were very slow, but
still managed to choose the high density arm, climb the barrier,
and consume the pellets (Cousins et al., 1996). Yet accumbens DA
depletions dramatically altered choice behavior when the high
density arm (four pellets) had the barrier in position, and the arm
without the barrier contained an alternative food source (two pel-
lets). In this case, DA depletions or antagonism decreased choice
for the high density arm, and increased choice for the low density
arm (Salamone, 1994; Cousins et al., 1996; Denk et al., 2005; Mott
et al., 2009). Like the operant concurrent choice task, the T-maze
task for measuring effort-based choice behavior also has under-
gone considerable behavioral validation and evaluation (Salamone,
1994; Cousins et al., 1996; van den Bos et al., 2006; Correa et al.,
2009). For example, in a recent T-maze choice study with mice, it
was confi rmed that haloperidol reduced choice of the arm with
the barrier, and it also was demonstrated that haloperidol had no
effect on choice when both arms had a barrier in place (Correa
et al., 2009). Thus, dopaminergic manipulations did not alter the
preference for the high density of food reward over the low density,
and did not affect discrimination or memory processes related to
arm preference. Over the last several years, variants of this task have
been used by several laboratories to characterize the effects of brain
lesions or drug manipulations (Salamone, 1994; Walton et al., 2003;
Denk et al., 2005; Schweimer and Hauber, 2005; van den Bos et al.,
2006; Bardgett et al., 2009; Hauber and Sommer, 2009; Mott et al.,
2009). The results of the T-maze studies in rodents, together with
the fi ndings from the operant concurrent choice studies reviewed
above, indicate that low doses of DA antagonists and accumbens DA
depletions cause animals to reallocate their instrumental response
selection based upon the response requirements of the task, and
select lower effort alternatives for obtaining rewards (see reviews
by Salamone et al., 2003, 2005, 2007; Floresco et al., 2008a).

Page 6

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 6
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
Adenosine A2A receptors also are involved in aspects of behavioral
activation and effort-related processes (Farrar et al., 2007; Font et al.,
2008; Mingote et al., 2008; Mott et al., 2009; Worden et al., 2009).
Injections of the adenosine A2A agonist CGS 21680 directly into the
accumbens can produce effects that resemble those of accumbens
DA depletions or antagonism. Intra-accumbens injections of CGS
21680 were shown to reduce locomotor activity (Barraco et al.,
1993). Local infusions of CGS 21680 into the accumbens reduced
responding on a VI 60 s schedule with a FR10 requirement attached,
but did not impair performance on a conventional VI 60 s schedule
(Mingote et al., 2008); this pattern is similar to that previously
shown with accumbens DA depletions (Mingote et al., 2005). In rats
responding on the operant FR5/chow feeding concurrent choice
procedure, injections of CGS 21680 into the accumbens decreased
lever pressing and increased chow intake (Font et al., 2008), a pat-
tern of effects similar to that produced by accumbens DA depletions
and antagonism. Consistent with the observation that an adenosine
A2A agonist could produce actions similar to those resulting from
DA depletion or blockade, it also has been reported the locomo-
tor suppression induced by the DA antagonist haloperidol was
reduced by injections of the adenosine A2A antagonist MSX-3 into
nucleus accumbens core, but not into the shell or the ventrola-
teral neostriatum (Ishiwari et al., 2007). Furthermore, it has been
demonstrated that adenosine A2A receptor antagonists can reverse
the effects of DA D2 antagonists on both the operant concurrent
choice task (Farrar et al., 2007; Salamone et al., 2009; Worden et al.,
2009) and the T-maze choice procedure (Correa et al., 2009; Mott
et al., 2009). Recently, studies with intracranial injections revealed
that systemic or intra-accumbens injections of the adenosine A2A
antagonist MSX-3 were able to block the effects of intra-accumbens
injections of the D2 antagonist eticlopride in rats responding on the
operant concurrent choice task (Farrar, 2009, unpublished doctoral
dissertation, University of Connecticut).
These studies afford an interesting opportunity to assess the
overall interaction between DA and adenosine receptor subtypes.
Adenosine A2A receptor antagonists MSX-3 and KW 6002 reliably
attenuate the effects of D2 antagonists such as haloperidol and
eticlopride in rats responding on the operant concurrent choice
procedure (Farrar et al., 2007; Salamone et al., 2009; Worden et al.,
2009). In contrast, MSX-3 was relatively ineffective at reducing the
effects of the D1 antagonist ecopipam (SCH 39166; Worden et al.,
2009) on this task. Although the non-selective adenosine antagonist
caffeine was able to partially reverse the effects of haloperidol on
the concurrent choice task, DPCPX, which is highly selective for
the adenosine A1 receptor subtype, was ineffective (Salamone et al.,
2009). Similar results were obtained with rats and mice responding
on the T-maze barrier choice task. Although MSX-3 was able to
reverse the effect of haloperidol on selection of the arm with the
barrier, the A1 antagonists DPCPX and CPT were not (Correa et al.,
2009; Mott et al., 2009).
The results described above demonstrate that there is a relatively
selective interaction between DA D2 and adenosine A2A receptor
subtypes (Table 1). Based upon anatomical studies, it appears
that this is likely to be due to the pattern of cellular localization
of adenosine A1 and A2A receptors in striatal areas, including the
nucleus accumbens (Ferré, 1997). Adenosine A2A receptors are typi-
cally co-localized on striatal and accumbens enkephalin- positive
Recent papers have used effort discounting procedures to
study the effects of dopaminergic manipulations. Floresco et al.
(2008b) investigated the effects of dopaminergic and gluta-
matergic drugs on both effort and delay discounting. The DA
antagonist haloperidol altered effort discounting even when the
effects of time delay were controlled for (Floresco et al., 2008b). A
T-maze effort discounting task was recently developed (Bardgett
et al., 2009), in which the amount of food in the high density
arm of the maze was diminished each trial on which the rats
selected that arm (i.e., an “adjusting-amount” discounting vari-
ant of the T-maze procedures, which allows for the determination
an indifference point for each rat). Administration of both the
D1 family antagonist SCH23390 and the D2 family antagonist
haloperidol altered effort discounting, making it more likely that
rats would choose the arm with the smaller reward. Increasing
DA transmission by administration of amphetamine blocked the
effects of SCH23390 and haloperidol, and also biased rats toward
choosing the high reward/high cost arm, which is consistent with
operant choice studies using DA transporter knockdown mice
(Cagniard et al., 2006). Together with other results, the fi ndings
reported by Bardgett et al. (2009) and Floresco et al. (2008b)
support the suggestion that, across a variety of conditions, DA
transmission exerts a bidirectional infl uence over effort-related
decision making.
INTERACTIONS BETWEEN DA AND ADENOSINE
As reviewed above, considerable research has demonstrated that
DA antagonists and accumbens DA depletions affect behavioral
activation, instrumental response output, response allocation, and
effort-related processes (Salamone et al., 1991, 2007; Salamone
and Correa, 2002; Phillips et al., 2007; Robbins and Everitt, 2007;
Floresco et al., 2008a). Clearly, DA does not participate in effort-
related processes in isolation, and for that reason it is important
to review how other brain areas and neurotransmitters interact
with dopaminergic mechanisms. Within the last few years, con-
siderable emphasis has been placed upon interactions between DA
and adenosine. Caffeine and other methylxanthines, which act as
minor stimulants, are non-selective adenosine antagonists (Ferré
et al., 2008). Recently, there has been a rapid growth of research
on adenosine receptor neurochemistry and pharmacology, particu-
larly concerning the A2A subtype of adenosine receptor. DA-rich
striatal areas, including both the caudate/putamen (neostriatum)
and the nucleus accumbens, have a very high degree of adenosine
A2A receptor expression (Schiffmann et al., 1991; DeMet and Chicz-
DeMet, 2002; Ferré et al., 2004). There is considerable evidence of
a functional interaction between striatal DA D2 and adenosine A2A
receptors (Fink et al., 1992; Ferré, 1997; Hillion et al., 2002; Fuxe
et al., 2003). This interaction frequently has been studied in regard
to neostriatal motor functions that are related to parkinsonism
(Ferré et al., 1997, 2001; Hauber and Munkel, 1997; Svenningsson
et al., 1999; Hauber et al., 2001; Wardas et al., 2001; Morelli and
Pinna, 2002; Correa et al., 2004; Jenner, 2005; Pinna et al., 2005;
Ishiwari et al., 2007; Salamone et al., 2008a,b). Several reports
also have characterized aspects of adenosine A2A receptor func-
tion related to cognitive processes (Takahashi et al., 2008), anxiety
(Correa and Font, 2008), and motivation (Salamone et al., 2007;
Mingote et al., 2008).

Page 7

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 7
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
medium spiny neurons with DA D2 family receptors, and these
receptors converge onto the same signal transduction pathways
and show the capacity for forming heteromeric complexes (Fink
et al., 1992; Ferré, 1997; Svenningsson et al., 1999; Hillion et al.,
2002; Fuxe et al., 2003). Thus, adenosine A2A receptor antagonists
appear to be so effective in reversing the effort-related actions of D2
antagonists because of direct interactions between DA D2 and ade-
nosine A2A receptors located on the same neurons (Figure 2). On
the other hand, DA D1 receptors are more likely to be co- localized
with adenosine A1 receptors (Ferré, 1997), which could help to
explain why it is more diffi cult for adenosine A1 receptor antago-
nists to reverse the effects of D2 receptor blockade. Interestingly,
despite the fact that D1 and A1 receptors tend to be co-localized
on the same neurons, the A1 antagonists DPCPX and CPT were
unable to reverse the effects of the D1 antagonist ecopipam in rats
responding on the concurrent choice operant procedure (Nunes
et al., 2009). This suggests that A2A antagonists exert an overall
greater effect than A1 antagonists on effort-related functions of
nucleus accumbens.
BEHAVIORAL THEORY AND ANALYSES: FURTHER
EVALUATION OF EFFORT-RELATED PROCESSES
Research on the brain mechanisms involved in effort-related
processes may lead to new ways of thinking about behavioral
analysis and theory in behavioral economics. One of the con-
tributions that behavioral neuroscience can make to behavioral
theory is to use manipulations (e.g., drugs, lesions) that dissociate
complex behavioral processes into component parts (Salamone
et al., 2007). In this regard, it is useful to consider that a given
parameter that is generated from curve-fi tting analyses, when
viewed in terms of its biological characteristics, has many factors
that contribute to it. A good example of this is the ED50, which
is used in pharmacology to provide a measure of the potency of
a drug based upon dose-response analysis. Empirically, the ED50
is the dose that produces an effect that is 50% of the maximal
effect. Although the ED50 is expressed as one number, that sim-
plicity is deceptive because many biochemical factors contribute
to it, including the affi nity of a drug for a receptor, duration of
action, drug metabolism, and penetration into the target tissue.
A useful example of this principle from the behavioral neuro-
science literature is the progressive ratio break point; as discussed
above, this measure also has many factors that can contribute to
it. Another case in which this point is important to consider is
threshold measures used in intracranial self-stimulation studies.
Such measures often are viewed as providing “rate-free” indices
of reinforcement value, nevertheless, they are infl uenced by lever
pressing ratio requirements as well as the electrical current level
(Fouriezos et al., 1990).
Table 1 | Interactions between dopamine and adenosine receptor antagonists.
Adenosine receptor antagonist
Non-selective A1 A2A
CONCURRENT FR5/FREE CHOW
D2 receptor antagonist
D1 receptor antagonist
T-MAZE WITH BARRIER
Reversal
–
No reversal
No reversal
Reversal
Partial reversal1
Farrar et al. (2007), Salamone et al. (2009), Worden et al. (2009)
Worden et al. (2009)1, Nunes et al. (2009)2
D2 receptor antagonist Reversal No reversal Reversal Mott et al. (2009), Pardo (2009)3
1There was a mild increase in lever pressing in ecopipam-treated rats that received the A2A antagonist MSX-3, but no reversal of the chow intake effect of the D1
antagonist.
2Data from Nunes et al. (2009).
3Data from Pardo (2009), unpublished masters thesis, University of Jaume I.
NUCLEUS
ACCUMBENS
S. Nigra
VTA
mGP
(EPN)
Ventral
Pallidum
A1/ D1A2A/ D2
FIGURE 2 | Anatomical diagram depicting the pattern of DA and
adenosine receptor localization in nucleus accumbens. See text for details
(see also Ferré, 1997; Hillion et al., 2002; Fuxe et al., 2003). mGP , medial
globus pallidus; epn, entopeduncular nucleus; s. nigra, substantia nigra; VTA,
ventral tegmental area.

Page 8

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 8
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
Hauber and Sommer, 2009). Within the last few years, there has
been considerable progress in characterizing the functional anat-
omy underlying this important aspect of motivation and deci-
sion making. Several transmitters across multiple brain regions
are involved in effort-related functions, and researchers are only
beginning to piece together the complex puzzle of all the potential
brain systems that are involved. Presently, the specifi c way in which
each structure contributes to the overall function of the system is
unclear. It is uncertain which brain areas are involved in the exertion
of effort, or the perception of effort, vs. the actual decision making
process itself. For example, it is possible that nucleus accumbens
is involved in the actual decision making processes, but it also is
possible that it is mainly involved in regulating energy output, or
setting effort-related constraints or feedback that in turn infl u-
ences decisions made at other levels in the system. If the latter is
true, then it is possible that the decision making effects of drug or
lesion manipulations of nucleus accumbens are an outcome refl ect-
ing the constraints that are set after compromised DA function
in accumbens, rather than a direct effect upon decision making
processes per se. Future research will be necessary to tease apart
these distinct aspects of effort-related function.
In addition to providing insights into aspects of animal behavior
and natural motivation, research on effort-related processes also
has clinical implications. Within the last few years, there has been
a greater emphasis upon effort-related functions involved in drug
self-administration (e.g., Vezina et al., 2002). Drug seeking behav-
ior in humans involves many psychological processes, including
effort. Addicts will go to great lengths to obtain their preferred drug,
overcoming numerous obstacles and constraints, both behavioral
and economic. Furthermore, addiction is characterized not only
by a re-organization of the preference structure of the person, but
also by a dramatic change in the allocation of behavioral resources
toward the addictive substance; there is a heightened emphasis upon
drug seeking and drug taking, typically at the expense of other
motivational activities. As well as being related to aspects of drug
taking and addiction, research on behavioral activation and effort
has implications for understanding the neural basis of psychiat-
ric symptoms such as psychomotor slowing, anergia, fatigue and
apathy, which are seen in depression as well as other psychiatric
or neurological conditions (Salamone et al., 2006, 2007). These
motivational symptoms, which can have devastating behavioral
manifestations (Stahl, 2002; Demyttenaere et al., 2005), represent
impairments in aspects of behavioral activation and effort that can
lead to problems in the workplace, as well as limitations in terms
of life function, interaction with the environment, and responsive-
ness to treatment. There is considerable overlap between the neural
circuitry involved in effort-related functions in animals and the
brain systems that have been implicated in psychomotor slowing
and anergia in depression (Salamone et al., 2006). Thus, research
on effort-related behavioral processes, and their neural regulation,
could have substantial impact on clinical research related to addic-
tion, depression, and other disorders.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Much of the work cited in this review was supported by a grant to
John D. Salamone from the US NIH/NIMH (MH078023), and to
Merce Correa from C. Sanitat G.V. AP04108.
Some research related to behavioral economics, reinforcer value,
and the functions of DA systems has used response-reinforcement
matching methods (e.g., Heyman and Monaghan, 1987; Aparicio,
2007). Matching equations have been employed to describe the
results of studies with both conventional and concurrent VI
schedules, and one of the parameters (Re) can be used to represent
reinforcement value (e.g., Herrnstein, 1974; see equation below
for single-lever conventional VI schedules, in which B represents
response rate, R represents reinforcement density, k is the constant
for maximal responding, and Re represents the reinforcement level
that generates 50% of maximum responding).
B = k R/(R + Re)
However, used in this way, Re does not selectively represent
only the reinforcement value of food per se; actually, it refl ects
the relative value of lever pressing for and consuming the food
reinforcer compared to the reinforcing value of all other stimuli
and responses available (Salamone et al., 1997). Several factors can
contribute to this composite measure, which is one of the reasons
why other matching equations have been developed that account
for deviations from matching by allowing for estimates of rein-
forcer sensitivity, as well as response preference or bias (Baum, 1974;
Williams, 1988; Aparicio, 2001). Clearly, a drug or lesion manipu-
lation could yield apparent effects on “reinforcement value” that
actually refl ect changes in response bias (Salamone, 1987; Salamone
et al., 1997).
For these reasons, it may be useful to think more deeply about
how terms such as value are used in neuroeconomics research. The
aggregate reinforcement value of an instrumental activity (e.g.,
lever pressing for and consuming food) should perhaps be viewed
as a composite measure that includes both the reinforcing value
of the reinforcer itself, plus any net value or costs associated with
the instrumental response that is required to obtain the reinforcer.
Viewed in this way, the effects of dopaminergic manipulations
on effort-related choice behavior could be described in terms of
actions upon the response costs associated with the particular rein-
forcer, rather than the reinforcing value of the food stimulus itself.
Although the effects of haloperidol on bias may be minimal when
two levers that are relatively similar are used (e.g., Aparicio, 2007),
they may be much larger when very different responses are com-
pared (e.g., lever pressing vs. sniffi ng; lever pressing vs. unrestricted
access to food; barrier climbing vs. locomotion). Future research
will determine if measures of bias based upon the matching equa-
tions, or some other type of mathematical formulation, would be
the best way to capture these drug effects quantitatively.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
In summary, DA and adenosine in the nucleus accumbens interact
to regulate effort-related functions. Additional research has shown
that a number of components of the cortico-striato-pallidal loop
system also are involved (Walton et al., 2006; Floresco and Ghods-
Sharifi , 2007; Farrar et al., 2008; Mingote et al., 2008; Hauber and
Sommer, 2009). Disconnection studies have revealed that serial
connections between basolateral amygdala, anterior cingulate
cortex, nucleus accumbens, and ventral pallidum are involved in
the exertion of effort and effort-related choice behavior (Floresco
and Ghods-Sharifi , 2007; Farrar et al., 2008; Mingote et al., 2008;

Page 9

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 9
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
ing selective 6-OHDA lesions of the
neostriatum. Behav. Brain Res. 4,
195–202.
Ettenberg, A., Koob, G. F., and Bloom, F. E.
(1981). Response artifact in the
measurement of neuroleptic-induced
anhedonia. Science 213, 357–359.
Everitt, B. J., and Robbins, T. W. (2005).
Neural systems of reinforcement for
drug addiction: from actions to hab-
its to compulsion. Nat. Neurosci. 8,
1481–1489.
Farrar, A. M., Font, L., Pereira, M.,
Mingote, S. M., Bunce, J. G.,
Chrobak, J. J., and Salamone, J. D.
(2008). Forebrain circuitry involved
in effort-related choice: injections of
the GABAA agonist muscimol into
ventral pallidum alters response
allocation in food-seeking behavior.
Neuroscience 152, 321–330.
Farrar, A. M., Pereira, M., Velasco, F.,
Hockemeyer, J., Muller, C. E., and
Salamone, J. D. (2007). Adenosine
A(2A) receptor antagonism reverses
the effects of dopamine receptor
antagonism on instrumental output
and effort-related choice in the rat:
implications for studies of psycho-
motor slowing. Psychopharmacology
191, 579–586.
Faure, A., Reynolds, S. M., Richard, J. M.,
and Berridge, K. C. (2008). Mesolimbic
dopamine in desire and dread: ena-
bling motivation to be generated by
localized glutamate disruptions in
nucleus accumbens. J. Neurosci. 28,
7184–7192.
Ferré, S. (1997). Adenosine–dopamine
interactions in the ventral striatum.
Implications for the treatment of
schizophrenia. Psychopharmacology,
133, 107–120.
Ferré, S., Ciruela, F., Borycz, J., Solinas, M.,
Quarta, D., Antoniou, K., Quiroz, C.,
Justinova, Z., Lluis, C., Franco, R., and
Goldberg, S. R. (2008). Adenosine A1-
A2A receptor heteromers: new targets
for caffeine in the brain. Front. Biosci.
13, 2391–2399.
Ferré, S., Ciruela, F., Canals, M.,
Marcellino, D., Burgueno, J., Casado, V.,
Hillion, J., Torvinen, M., Fanelli, F.,
Benedetti, P. P., Goldberg, S. R.,
Bouvier, M., Fuxe, K., Agnati, L. F.,
Lluis, C., Franco, R., and Woods. A.
(2004). Adenosine A2A-dopamine
D2 receptor–receptor heteromers.
Targets for neuro-psychiatric disor-
ders. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 10,
265–271.
Ferré, S., Fredholm, B. B., Morelli, M.,
Popoli, P., and Fuxe, K. (1997).
Adenosine–dopamine receptor–
receptor interactions as an integrative
mechanism in the basal ganglia. Trends
Neurosci. 20, 482–487.
Ferré, S., Popoli, P., Giménez-Llort, L.,
Rimondini, R., Müller, C. E.,
REFERENCES
Aberman, J. E., and Salamone, J. D. (1999).
Nucleus accumbens dopamine deple-
tions make rats more sensitive to
high ratio requirements but do not
impair primary food reinforcement.
Neuroscience 92, 545–552.
Allison, J. (1981). Economics and oper-
ant conditioning. In Predictability,
Correlation and Contiguity, P.
Harzem and M. D. Zeiler, eds
(New York, John Wiley and Sons),
pp 321–353.
Allison, J. (1993). Response deprivation,
reinforcement, and economics. J. Exp.
Anal. Behav. 60, 129–140.
Anstrom, K. K., and Woodward, D. J.
(2005). Restraint increases dopamin-
ergic burst firing in awake rats.
Neuropsychopharmacology 30,
1832–1840.
Aparicio, C. F. (2001). Overmatching
in rats: the barrier choice paradigm.
J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 75:93–106.
Aparicio, C. F. (2007). Haloperidol,
dynamics of choice, and the param-
eters of the matching law. Behav.
Processes 75, 206–212.
Bakshi, V. P., and Kelley, A. E. (1991).
Dopaminergic regulation of feed-
ing behavior: I. Differential effects of
haloperidol microinjection in three
striatal subregions. Psychobiology 19,
223–232.
Baldo, B. A., and Kelley, A. E. (2007).
Discrete neurochemical coding of dis-
tinguishable motivational processes:
insights from nucleus accumbens con-
trol of feeding. Psychopharmacology
(Berl.) 191, 439–459.
Baldo, B. A., Sadeghian, K., Basso, A. M.,
and Kelley, A. E. (2002). Effects of
selective dopamine D1 or D2 receptor
blockade within nucleus accumbens
subregions on ingestive behavior and
associated motor activity. Behav. Brain
Res. 137, 165–177.
Barbano, M. F., and Cador, M. (2007).
Opioids for hedonic experience
and dopamine to get ready for it.
Psychopharmacology 191, 497–506.
Bardgett, M. E., Depenbrock, M.,
Downs, N., Points, M., and Green, L.
(2009). Dopamine modulates effort-
based decision making in rats. Behav.
Neurosci. 123, 242–251.
Barraco, R. A., Martens, K. A., Parizon, M.,
and Normile, H. J. (1993). Adenosine
A2a receptors in the nucleus accumbens
mediate locomotor depression. Brain
Res. Bull. 31, 397–404.
Baum, W. M. (1974). On two types of
deviation from the matching law:
bias and undermatching. J. Exp. Anal.
Behav. 22, 231–242.
Berridge, K. C. (2007). The debate over
dopamine’s role in reward: the case for
incentive salience. Psychopharmacology
191, 391–431.
Berridge, K. C., and Kringlebach, M. L.
(2008). Affective neuroscience of
pleasure: reward in humans and
animals. Psychopharmacology 199,
457–480.
Bickel, W. K., Marsch, L. A., and
Carroll, M. E. (2000). Deconstructing
relative reinforcing effi cacy and situ-
ating the measures of pharmacologi-
cal reinforcement with behavioral
economics: a theoretical proposal.
Psychopharmacology 153, 44–56.
Blazquez, P. M., Fujii, N., Kojima, J., and
Graybiel, A. M. (2002). A network
representation of response prob-
ability in the striatum. Neuron 33,
973–982.
Brauer, L. H., and De Wit, H. (1997).
High dose pimozide does not block
amphetamine-induced euphoria
in normal volunteers. Pharmacol.
Biochem. Behav. 56, 265–272.
Brischoux, F., Chakraborty, S.,
Brierley, D. I., and Ungless, M. A.
(2009). Phasic excitation of dopamine
neurons in ventral VTA by noxious
stimuli. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA
106, 4894–4899.
Broom, S. L., and Yamamoto, B. K. (2005).
Effects of subchronic methampheta-
mine exposure on basal dopamine
and stress-induced dopamine release
in the nucleus accumbens shell
of rats. Psychopharmacology 181,
467–476.
Cagniard, B., Balsam, P. D., Brunner, D.,
and Zhuang, X. (2006). Mice with
chronically elevated dopamine
exhibit enhanced motivation, but
not learning, for a food reward.
Neuropsychopharmacology 31,
1362–1370.
Cannon, C. M., and Bseikri, M. R. (2004).
Is dopamine required for natural
reward? Physiol. Behav. 81, 741–748.
Caul, W. F., and Brindle, N. A. (2001).
Schedule-dependent effects of halo-
peridol and amphetamine: multiple-
schedule task shows within-subject
effects. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
68, 53–63.
Cofer, C. N., and Appley, M. H. (1964).
Motivation: Theory and Research.
New York, John Wiley and Sons.
Collier, G. H., and Jennings, W. (1969).
Work as a determinant of instrumen-
tal performance. J. Comp. Physiol.
Psychol. 68, 659–662.
Correa, M., Carlson, B. B., Wisniecki, A.,
and Salamone, J. D. (2002). Nucleus
accumbens dopamine and work
requirements on interval schedules.
Behav. Brain Res. 137, 179–187.
Correa, M., and Font, L. (2008). Is there a
major role for adenosine A2A recep-
tors in anxiety? Front. Biosci. 13,
4058–4070.
Correa, M., Pardo, M., Hockemeyer, J.,
Müller, C. E., and Salamone, J. D.
(2009). Dopamine D2 Antagonism
Increases Selection of Less Effortful
Food-seeking Behavior in a T-maze
Procedure in Mice: Reversal of the
Motivational Impairment with
Adenosine Antagonists. Neuroscience
Meeting Planner. Washington, DC,
Society for Neuroscience (online).
Correa, M., Wisniecki, A., Betz, A.,
Dobson, D. R., O’Neill, M. F.,
O’Neill, M. J., and Salamone, J. D.
(2004). The adenosine A2A antago-
nist KF17837 reverses the locomotor
suppression and tremulous jaw move-
ments induced by haloperidol in rats:
possible relevance to parkinsonism.
Behav. Brain Res. 148, 47–54.
Cousins, M. S., Atherton, A., Turner, L.,
and Salamone, J. D. (1996). Nucleus
accumbens dopamine depletions
alter relative response allocation in a
T-maze cost/benefi t task. Behav. Brain
Res. 74, 189–197.
Cousins, M. S., and Salamone, J. D. (1994).
Nucleus accumbens dopamine deple-
tions in rats affect relative response
allocation in a novel cost/benefi t pro-
cedure. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
49, 85–91.
Cousins, M. S., Sokolowski, J. D., and
Salamone, J. D. (1993). Different
effects of nucleus accumbens and ven-
trolateral striatal dopamine depletions
on instrumental response selection in
the rat. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 46,
943–951.
Cousins, M. S., Wei, W., and Salamone, J. D.
(1994). Pharmacological characteriza-
tion of performance on a concurrent
lever pressing/feeding choice proce-
dure: effects of dopamine antagonist,
cholinomimetic, sedative and stimu-
lant drugs. Psychopharmacology 116,
529–537.
Delgado, M. R., Li, J., Schiller, D., and
Phelps, E. A. (2008). The role of the
striatum in aversive learning and
aversive prediction errors. Philos.
Trans. R. Soc. Lond., B, Biol. Sci. 363,
3787–3800.
DeMet, E. M., and Chicz-DeMet, A. (2002).
Localization of adenosine A2A-receptors
in rat brain with [3H]ZM-241385.
Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch. Pharmacol.
366, 478–481.
Demyttenaere, K., De Fruyt, J., and
Stahl, S. M. (2005). The many faces of
fatigue in major depressive disorder.
Int. J. Neuropsychopharmacol. 8,
93–105.
Denk, F., Walton, M. E., Jennings, K. A.,
Sharp, T., Rushworth, M. F., and
Bannerman, D. M. (2005). Differential
involvement of serotonin and
dopamine systems in cost- benefit
decisions about delay or effort.
Psychopharmacology 179, 587–596.
Dunnett, S. B., and Iversen, S. D. (1982).
Regulatory impairments follow-

Page 10

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 10
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
Liberzon, I., Taylor, S. F., Amdur, R.,
Jung, T. D., Chamberlain, K. R.,
Minoshima, S., Koeppe, R. A., and
Fig, L. M. (1999). Brain activation in
PTSD in response to trauma-related
stimuli. Biol. Psychiatry 45, 817–826.
Marinelli, M., Barrot, M., Simon, H.,
Oberlander, C., Dekeyne, A., Le
Moal, M., and Piazza, P. V. (1998).
Pharmacological stimuli decreasing
nucleus accumbens dopamine can act
as positive reinforcers but have a low
addictive potential. Eur. J. Neurosci. 10,
3269–3275.
Marinelli, S., Pascucci, T., Bernardi, G.,
Puglisi-Allegra, S., and Mercuri, N. B.
(2005). Activation of TRPV1 in
the VTA excites dopaminergic
neurons and increases chemical-
and noxious-induced dopamine
release in the nucleus accumbens.
Neuropsychopharmacology 30,
864–875.
Martinez, R. C. R., Oliveira, A. R.,
Macedo, C. E., Molina, V. A., and
Brandao, M. L. (2008). Involvement
of dopaminergic mechanisms in the
nucleus accumbens core and shell
subregions in the expression of fear
conditioning. Neurosci. Lett. 446,
112–116.
McCullough, L. D., and Salamone, J. D.
(1992) Anxiogenic drugs beta-CCE
and FG 7142 increase extracellular
dopamine levels in nucleus accumbens.
Psychopharmacology 109, 379–382.
McCullough, L. D., Sokolowski, J. D., and
Salamone, J. D. (1993). A neurochemi-
cal and behavioral investigation of the
involvement of nucleus accumbens
dopamine in instrumental avoidance.
Neuroscience 52, 919–925.
Mekarski, J. E. (1988). Main effects
of current and pimozide on pre-
pared and learned self-stimulation
behaviors are on performance not
reward. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
31, 845–853.
Mingote, S., Font, L., Farrar, A. M.,
Vontell, R., Worden, L. T.,
Stopper, C. M., Port, R. G., Sink, K. S.,
Bunce, J. G., Chrobak, J. J., and
Salamone, J. D. (2008). Nucleus
accumbens adenosine A2A receptors
regulate exertion of effort by acting
on the ventral striatopallidal pathway.
J. Neurosci. 28, 9037–9046.
Mingote, S., Weber, S. M., Ishiwari, K.,
Correa, M., and Salamone, J. D. (2005).
Ratio and time requirements on ope-
rant schedules: effort-related effects of
nucleus accumbens dopamine deple-
tions. Eur. J. Neurosci 21, 1749–1757.
Mogenson, G. J., Jones, D. L., and
Yim, C. Y. (1980). From motivation to
action: functional interface between
the limbic system and the motor sys-
tem. Prog. Neurobiol. 14, 69–97.
the locomotor suppression induced
by haloperidol in rats. Behav. Brain
Res. 178, 190–199.
Ishiwari, K., Weber, S. M., Mingote, S.,
Correa, M., and Salamone, J. D. (2004).
Accumbens dopamine and the regula-
tion of effort in food-seeking behavior:
modulation of work output by differ-
ent ratio or force requirements. Behav.
Brain Res. 151, 83–91.
Jenner, P. (2005). Istradefylline, a novel
adenosine A2A receptor antagonist,
for the treatment of Parkinson’s dis-
ease. Expert Opin. Investig. Drugs 14,
729–738.
Jensen, J., McIntosh, A. R., Crawley, A. P.,
Mikulis, D. J., Remington, G., and
Kapur, S. (2003). Direct activation
of the ventral striatum in anticipa-
tion of aversive stimuli. Neuron 40,
1251–1257.
Johnson, D. F., and Collier, G. H. (1987).
Caloric regulation and patterns of
food choice in a patchy environment:
the value and cost of alternative foods.
Physiol. Behav. 39, 351–359.
Kaufman, L. W. (1980). Foraging costs and
meal patterns in ferrets. Physiol. Behav.
25, 139–141.
Kaufman, L. W., Collier, G., Hill, W. L., and
Collins, K. (1980). Meal cost and meal
patterns in an uncaged domestic cat.
Physiol. Behav. 25, 135–137.
Kelley, A. E., Baldo, B. A., Pratt, W. E., and
Will, M. J. (2005). Corticostriatal-
hypothalamic circuitry and food
motivation: integration of energy,
action and reward. Physiol. Behav. 86,
773–795.
Koch, M., Schmid, A., and Schnitzler, H. U.
(2000). Role of nucleus accumbens
dopamine D1 and D2 receptors
in instrumental and Pavlovian
paradigms of conditioned reward.
Psychopharmacology 152, 67–73.
Koob, G. F., Riley, S. J., Smith, S. C., and
Robbins, T. W. (1978). Effects of
6-hydroxydopamine lesions of the
nucleus accumbens septi and olfactory
tubercle on feeding, locomotor activity,
and amphetamine anorexia in the rat. J.
Comp. Physiol. Psychol. 92, 917–927.
Krebs, J. R. (1977). Optimal foraging:
theory and experiment. Nature 268,
583–584.
Lapish, C. C., Kroener, S., Durstewitz, D.,
Lavin, A., Seamans, J. K. (2007). The
ability of the mesocortical dopamine
system to operate in distinct tempo-
ral modes. Psychopharmacology 191,
609–625.
Lea, S. E. G. (1978). The psychology and
economics of demand. Psychol. Bull.
85, 441–466.
Levita, L., Hare, T. A., Voss, H. U., Glover, G.,
Ballon, D. J., and Casey, B. J. (2009). The
bivalent side of the nucleus accumbens.
Neuroimage 44, 1178–1187.
Strömberg, I., Ögren, S. O., and Fuxe, K.
(2001). Adenosine/dopamine interac-
tion: implications for the treatment
of Parkinson’s disease. Parkinsonism
Relat. Disord. 7, 235–241.
Fink, J. S., Weaver, D. R., Rivkees, S. A.,
Peterfreund, R. A., Pollack, A. E.,
Adler, E. M., and Reppert, S. M.
(1992). Molecular cloning of the rat
A2A adenosine receptor: selective co-
expression with D2 dopamine recep-
tors in rat striatum. Brain Res. Mol.
Brain Res. 14, 186–195.
Floresco, S. B., and Ghods-Sharifi, S.
(2007). Amygdala-prefrontal corti-
cal circuitry regulates effort-based
decision making. Cereb. Cortex 17,
251–260.
Floresco, S. B., St Onge, J. R., Ghods-
Sharifi, S., and Winstanley, C. A.
(2008a). Cortico-limbic-striatal cir-
cuits subserving different forms of
cost-benefi t decision making. Cogn.
Affect. Behav. Neurosci. 8, 375–389.
Floresco, S. B., Tse, M. T., and Ghods-
Sharifi, S. (2008b). Dopaminergic
and glutamatergic regulation of
effort- and delay-based decision
making. Neuropsychopharmacology
33, 1966–1979.
Foltin, R. W. (1991). An economic analy-
sis of “demand” for food in baboons.
J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 56, 445–454.
Font, L., Mingote, S., Farrar, A. M.,
Pereira, M., Worden, L., Stopper, C.,
Port, R. G., and Salamone, J. D. (2008).
Intra-accumbens injections of the ade-
nosine A(2A) agonist CGS 21680 affect
effort-related choice behavior in rats.
Psychopharmacology 199, 515–526.
Fouriezos, G., Bielajew, C., and Pagotto, W.
(1990). Task diffi culty increases thresh-
olds of rewarding brain stimulation.
Behav. Brain Res. 37, 1–7.
Fuxe, K., Agnati, L. F., Jacobsen, K.,
Hillion, J., Canals, M., Torvinen, M.,
Tinner-Staines, B., Staines, W.,
Rosin, D., Terasmaa, A., Popoli, P.,
Leo, G., Vergoni, V., Lluis, C.,
Ciruela, F., Franco, R., and Ferré, S.
(2003). Receptor heteromerization
in adenosine A2A receptor signaling:
relevance for striatal function and
Parkinson’s disease. Neurology 61,
S19–S23.
Gawin, F. H. (1986). Neuroleptic reduc-
tion of cocaine-induced paranoia but
not euphoria? Psychopharmacology 90,
142–143.
Guarraci, F. A., and Kapp, B. S. (1999). An
electrophysiological characterization
of ventral tegmental area dopamin-
ergic neurons during differential
pavlovian fear conditioning in the
awake rabbit. Behav. Brain Res. 99,
169–179.
Hamill, S., Trevitt, J. T., Nowend, K. L.,
Carlson, B. B., and Salamone, J. D.
(1999). Nucleus accumbens dopamine
depletions and time-constrained
progressive ratio performance:
effects of different ratio require-
ments. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
64, 21–27.
Haney, M., Ward, A. S., Foltin, R. W.,
and Fischman, M. W. (2001). Effects
of ecopipam, a selective dopamine
D1 antagonist, on smoked cocaine
self-administration by humans.
Psychopharmacology 155, 330–337.
Hauber, W., and Munkel, M. (1997).
Motor depressant effects mediated
by dopamine D2 and adenosine A2A
receptors in the nucleus accumbens
and the caudate-putamen. Eur.
J. Pharmacol. 323, 127–131.
Hauber, W., Neuscheler, P., Nagel, J., and
Muller, C. E. (2001). Catalepsy induced
by a blockade of dopamine D1 or D2
receptors was reversed by a concomi-
tant blockade of adenosine A2A recep-
tors in the caudate putamen of rats.
Eur. J. Neurosci. 14, 1287–1293.
Hauber, W., and Sommer, S. (2009).
Prefrontostriatal circuitry regulates
effort-related decision making. Cereb.
Cortex [Epub ahead of print]. doi:
10.1093/cercor/bhn241.
Hengeveld, G. M., van Langevelde, F.,
Groen, T. A., and de Knegt, H. J.
(2009). Optimal foraging for multiple
resources in several food species. Am.
Nat. 17, 102–110.
Herrnstein, R. J. (1974). Formal proper-
ties of the matching law. J. Exp. Anal.
Behav. 21, 159–164.
Heyman, G. M., and Monaghan, M. M.
(1987). The effect of changes in the
response requirement and deprivation
on the parameters of the matching law
equation: new data and review. J. Exp.
Psych. An. Behav. Proc. 13, 384–394.
Hillion, J., Canals, M., Torvinen, M.,
Casado, V., Scott, R., Terasmaa, A.,
Hansson, A., Watson, S., Olah, M. E.,
Mallol, J., Canela, E. I., Zoli, M.,
Agnati, L. F., Ibañez, C. F., Lluis, C.,
Franco, R., Ferré, S., and Fuxe, K.
(2002). Coaggregation, cointernali-
zation, and codesensitization of ade-
nosine A2A receptors and dopamine
D2 receptors. J. Biol. Chem. 277,
18091–18097.
Hursh, S. R., Raslear, T. G., Shurtleff, D.,
Bauman, R., and Simmons, L. (1988).
A cost-benefit analysis of demand
for food. J. Exp. Anal. Behav. 50,
419–440.
Ishiwari, K., Madson, L. J., Farrar, A. M.,
Mingote, S. M., Valenta, J. P.,
DiGianvittorio, M. D., Frank, L. E.,
Correa, M., Hockemeyer, J.,
Muller, C., and Salamone, J. D. (2007).
Injections of the selective adenos-
ine A2A antagonist MSX-3 into the
nucleus accumbens core attenuate

Page 11

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 11
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
on instrumental behaviours.
Psychopharmacology 88, 18–23.
Salamone, J. D. (1987). The actions of
neuroleptic drugs on appetitive instru-
mental behaviors. In Handbook of
Psychopharmacology, L. L. Iversen, S. D.
Iversen and S. H. Snyder, eds (New York,
Plenum Press), pp. 575–608.
Salamone, J. D. (1988). Dopaminergic
involvement in activational aspects
of motivation: effects of haloperidol
on schedule induced activity, feeding
and foraging in rats. Psychobiology 16,
196–206.
Salamone, J. D. (1994). The involvement
of nucleus accumbens dopamine in
appetitive and aversive motivation.
Behav. Brain Res. 61, 117–133.
Salamone, J. D. (1996). The behavio-
ral neurochemistry of motivation:
methodological and conceptual
issues in studies of the dynamic activ-
ity of nucleus accumbens dopamine.
J. Neurosci. Methods 64, 137–149.
Salamone, J. D. (in press). Involvement
of nucleus accumbens dopamine
in behavioral activation and effort-
related functions. In Dopamine
Handbook, L. L. Iversen, S. D.
Iversen, S. B., Dunnett and A.
Bjorkland, eds (Oxford, Oxford
University Press).
Salamone, J. D. (2006). Will the last person
who uses the term ‘reward’ please turn
out the lights? Comments on proces-
ses related to reinforcement, learning,
motivation and effort. Addict. Biol.11,
43–44.
Salamone, J. D., Aberman, J. E.,
Sokolowski, J. D., and Cousins, M. S.
(1999). Nucleus accumbens dopamine
and rate of responding: neurochemical
and behavioral studies. Psychobiology
27, 236–247.
Salamone, J. D., Arizzi, M., Sandoval, M. D.,
Cervone, K. M., and Aberman, J. E.
(2002). Dopamine antagonists alter
response allocation but do not sup-
press appetite for food in rats: contrast
between the effects of SKF 83566, raclo-
pride and fenfl uramine on a concur-
rent choice task. Psychopharmacology
160, 371–380.
Salamone, J. D., Betz, A. J., Ishiwari, K.,
Felsted, J., Madson, L., Mirante, B.,
Clark, K., Font, L., Korbey, S.,
Sager, T. N., Hockemeyer, J., and
Muller, C. E. (2008a). Tremorolytic
effects of adenosine A2A antagonists:
implications for parkinsonism. Front.
Biosci. 13, 3594–3605.
Salamone, J. D., Ishiwari, K., Betz, A. J.,
Farrar, A. M., Mingote, S. M., Font, L.,
Hockemeyer, J., Müller, C. E., and
Correa, M. (2008b). Dopamine/
adenosine interactions related to
locomotion and tremor in animal
models: possible relevance to parkin-
siveness. Eur. Arch. Psychiatry Clin.
Neurosci. 253, 80–83.
Pezze, M. A., and Feldon, J. (2004).
Mesolimbic dopaminergic pathways
in fear conditioning. Prog. Neurobiol.
74, 301–320.
Phan, K. L., Taylor, S. F., Welsh, R. C.,
Ho, S. H., Britton, J. C., and Liberzon, I.
(2004). Neural correlates of individual
ratings of emotional salience: a trial-
related fMRI study. Neuroimage 21,
768–780.
Phillips, P. E., Walton, M. E., and
Jhou, T. C. (2007). Calculating utility:
preclinical evidence for cost- benefi t
analysis by mesolimbic dopamine.
Psychopharmacology 191, 483–495.
Pinna, A., Wardas, J., Simola, N., and
Morelli, M. (2005). New therapies for
the treatment of Parkinson’s disease:
adenosine A2A receptor antagonists.
Life Sci. 77, 3259–3267.
Pruessner, J. C., Champagne, F.,
Meaney, M. J., and Dagher, A. (2004).
Dopamine release in response to a
psychological stress in humans and its
relationship to early life maternal care:
a positron emission tomography study
using [11C]raclopride. J. Neurosci. 24,
2825–2831.
Rachlin, H. (2003). Economic concepts
in the behavioral study of addiction.
In Choice, Behavioral Economics
and Addiction, R. E. Vuchinich and
N. Heather, eds (Oxford, Elsevier),
pp. 129–149.
Redgrave, P., Gurney, K., and Reynolds, J.
(2008). What is reinforced by phasic
dopamine signals? Brain Res. Rev. 58,
322–339.
Richardson, N. R., and Roberts, D. C.
(1996). Progressive ratio schedules
in drug self-administration studies
in rats: a method to evaluate rein-
forcing effi cacy. J. Neurosci. Methods
66, 1–11.
Rick, J. H., Horvitz, J. C., and Balsam, P. D.
(2006). Dopamine receptor blockade
and extinction differentially affect
behavioral variability. Behav. Neurosci.
120, 488–492.
Robbins, T. W., and Everitt, B. J. (2007).
A role for mesencephalic dopamine in
activation: commentary on Berridge
(2006). Psychopharmacology 191,
433–437.
Robbins, T. W., and Koob, G. F. (1980).
Selective disruption of displacement
behaviour by lesions of the mesolim-
bic dopamine system. Nature 285,
409–412.
Roitman, M. F., Stuber, G. D., Phillips, P. E.,
Wightman, R. M., and Carelli, R. M.
(2004). Dopamine operates as a sub-
second modulator of food seeking.
J. Neurosci. 24, 1265–1271.
Salamone, J. D. (1986). Different effects
of haloperidol and extinction
Morelli, M., and Pinna, A. (2002).
Interaction between dopamine and
adenosine A2A receptors as a basis for
the treatment of Parkinson’s disease.
Neurol. Sci. 22, 71–72.
Mott, A. M, Nunes, E. J., Collins, L. E.,
Port, R. G., Sink, K. S., Hockemeyer, J.,
Müller, C. E., and Salamone, J. D.
(2009). The adenosine A2A antago-
nist MSX-3 reverses the effects of
the dopamine antagonist haloperidol
on effort-related decision making
in a T-maze cost/benefi t procedure.
Psychopharmacology 204, 103–112.
Munro, L. J., and Kokkinidis, L. (1997).
Infusion of quinpirole and muscimol
into the ventral tegmental area inhibits
fear-potentiated startle: implications
for the role of dopamine in fear expres-
sion. Brain Res. 746, 231–238.
Nann-Vernotica, E., Donny, E. C.,
Bigelow, G. E., and Walsh, S. L. (2001).
Repeated administration of the D1/5
antagonist ecopipam fails to attenu-
ate the subjective effects of cocaine.
Psychopharmacology 155, 338–347.
Neill, D. B., and Justice, J. B. (1981). An
hypothesis for a behavioral function of
dopaminergic transmission in nucleus
accumbens. In The Neurobiology of
Nucleus Accumbens, R. B. Chronister
and J. F. Defrance, eds (Brunswick,
Huer Institute).
Nicola, S. M. (2007). The nucleus
accumbens as part of a basal
ganglia action selection circuit.
Psychopharmacology 191, 521–550.
Niv, Y., Daw, N. D., Joel, D., and Dayan, P.
(2007). Tonic dopamine: opportunity
costs and the control of response
vigor. Psychopharmacology 191,
507–520.
Nowend, K. L., Arizzi, M., Carlson, B. B.,
and Salamone, J. D. (2001). D1 or D2
antagonism in nucleus accumbens
core or dorsomedial shell suppresses
lever pressing for food but leads to
compensatory increases in chow con-
sumption. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav.
69, 373–382.
Nunes, E. J., Farrar, A. M., Font, L.,
Patel, V., Schlar, D. E., Collins, L. E.,
Sager, T. N., Correa, M., and
Salamone, J. D. (2009). Differential
Actions of Adenosine A1 and A2A
Antagonists on the Effort-related
Effects of Dopamine Antagonists.
Neuroscience Meeting Planner.
Washington, DC, Society for
Neuroscience (online).
Palmiter, R. D. (2007). Is dopamine a
physiologically relevant mediator of
feeding behavior? Trends Neurosci. 30,
375–381.
Pavic, L. (2003). Alterations in brain acti-
vation in posttraumatic stress disor-
der patients with severe hyperarousal
symptoms and impulsive aggres-
sonism. Parkinsonism Relat. Disord. 14,
S130–S134.
Salamone, J. D., and Correa, M. (2002).
Motivational views of reinforcement:
implications for understanding the
behavioral functions of nucleus
accumbens dopamine. Behav. Brain
Res. 137, 3–25.
Salamone, J. D., Correa, M., Farrar, A., and
Mingote, S. M. (2007). Effort-related
functions of nucleus accumbens
dopamine and associated forebrain
circuits. Psychopharmacology 191,
461–482.
Salamone, J. D., Correa, M., Mingote, S.,
and Weber, S. M. (2003). Nucleus
accumbens dopamine and the
regulation of effort in food-seeking
behavior: implications for studies of
natural motivation, psychiatry, and
drug abuse. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
305, 1–8.
Salamone, J. D., Correa, M.,
Mingote, S. M., and Weber, S. M.
(2005). Beyond the reward hypoth-
esis: alternative functions of nucleus
accumbens dopamine. Curr. Opin.
Pharmacol. 5, 34–41.
Salamone, J. D., Correa, M., Mingote, S. M.,
Weber, S. M., and Farrar, A. M. (2006).
Nucleus accumbens dopamine and the
forebrain circuitry involved in behav-
ioral activation and effort-related
decision making: implications for
understanding anergia and psycho-
motor slowing in depression. Curr.
Psychiatry Rev. 2, 267–280.
Salamone, J. D., Cousins, M. S., and
Bucher, S. (1994). Anhedonia or aner-
gia? Effects of haloperidol and nucleus
accumbens dopamine depletion on
instrumental response selection in a
T-maze cost/benefi t procedure. Behav.
Brain Res. 65, 221–229.
Salamone, J. D., Cousins, M. S., Maio, C.,
Champion, M., Turski, T., and
Kovach, J. (1996). Different behav-
ioral effects of haloperidol, clozap-
ine and thioridazine in a concurrent
lever pressing and feeding procedure.
Psychopharmacology 125, 105–112.
Salamone, J. D., Cousins, M. S., and
Snyder, B. J. (1997). Behavioral
functions of nucleus accumbens
dopamine: empirical and concep-
tual problems with the anhedonia
hypothesis. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev.
21, 341–359.
Salamone, J. D., Farrar, A. M., Font, L.,
Patel, V., Schlar, D. E., Nunes, E. J.,
Collins, L. E., and Sager, T. N. (2009).
Differential actions of adenosine A1
and A2A antagonists on the effort-
related effects of dopamine D2
antagonism. Behav. Brain Res. 201,
216–222.
Salamone, J. D., Kurth, P.,
M c C u l l o u g h , L D. , a n d

Page 12

Frontiers in Behavioral Neuroscience www.frontiersin.org September 2009 | Volume 3 | Article 13 | 12
Salamone et al. Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort
Sokolowski, J. D. (1995). The effects
of nucleus accumbens dopamine
depletions on continuously reinforced
operant responding: contrasts with
the effects of extinction. Pharmacol.
Biochem. Behav. 50, 437–443.
Salamone, J. D., Mahan, K., and Rogers, S.
(1993a). Ventrolateral striatal
dopamine depletions impair feeding
and food handling in rats. Pharmacol.
Biochem. Behav. 44, 605–610.
Salamone, J. D., Kurth, P. A.,
McCullough, L. D., Sokolowski, J. D.,
and Cousins, M. S. (1993b). The
role of brain dopamine in response
initiation: effects of haloperidol and
regionally specifi c dopamine deple-
tions on the local rate of instrumental
responding. Brain Res. 628, 218–226.
Salamone, J. D., Steinpreis, R. E.,
McCullough, L. D., Smith, P.,
Grebel, D., and Mahan, K. (1991).
Haloperidol and nucleus accumbens
dopamine depletion suppress lever
pressing for food but increase free food
consumption in a novel food choice
procedure. Psychopharmacology 104,
515–521.
Salamone, J. D., Wisniecki, A.,
Carlson, B. B., and Correa, M. (2001).
Nucleus accumbens dopamine deple-
tions make animals highly sensitive to
high fi xed ratio requirements but do
not impair primary food reinforce-
ment. Neuroscience 105, 863–870.
Sanchis-Segura, C., and Spanagel, R.
(2006). Behavioural assessment of
drug reinforcement and addictive fea-
tures in rodents: an overview. Addict.
Biol. 11, 2–38.
Sarchiapone, M., Carli, V., Camardese, G.,
Cuomo, C., Di Guida, D.,
Calgagni, M. L., Focacci, C., and De
Riso, S. (2006). Dopamine transporter
binding in depressed patients with
anhedonia. Psychiatry Res. Neuroimag.
147, 243–248.
Schiffmann, S. N., Jacobs, O., and
Vanderhaeghen, J. J. (1991). Striatal
restricted adenosine A2A receptor
(RDC8) is expressed by enkephalin
but not by substance P neurons: an
in situ hybridization histochemistry
study. J. Neurochem. 57, 1062–1071.
Schmelzeis, M. C., and Mittleman, G.
(1996). The hippocampus and reward:
effects of hippocampal lesions on
progressive-ratio responding. Behav.
Neurosci. 110, 1049–1066.
Schultz, W. (2007a). Multiple dopamine
functions at different time courses.
Annu. Rev. Neurosci. 30, 259–288.
Schultz, W. (2007b). Behavioral dopamine
signals. Trends Neurosci. 30, 203–210.
Schweimer, J., and Hauber, W. (2005).
Involvement of the rat anterior cingu-
late cortex in control of instrumental
responses guided by reward expect-
ancy. Learn. Mem. 12, 334–342.
Sink, K. S., Vemuri, V. K., Olszewska, T.,
Makriyannis, A., and Salamone, J. D.
(2008). Cannabinoid CB1 antagonists
and dopamine antagonists produce
different effects on a task involving
response allocation and effort-related
choice in food-seeking behavior.
Psychopharmacology 196, 565–574.
Skjoldager, P., Pierre, P. J., and Mittlman, G.
(1993). Reinforcer magnitude and
progressive ratio responding: effects of
increased effort, prefeeding and extinc-
tion. Learn. Motiv. 24, 303–343.
Sokolowski, J. D., and Salamone, J. D.
(1998). The role of accumbens dopa-
mine in lever pressing and response
allocation: effects of 6-OHDA
injected into core and dorsomedial
shell. Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 59,
557–566.
Staddon, J. E. R. (1979). Operant behav-
ior as adaptation to constraint. J. Exp.
Psychol. Gen. 108, 48–67.
Stahl, S. M. (2002). The psychopharma-
cology of energy and fatigue. J. Clin.
Psychiatry 63, 7–8.
Stewart, W. J. (1974). Progressive rein-
forcement schedules: a review and
evaluation. Aust. J. Psychol. 27, 9–22.
Svenningsson, P., Le Moine, C., Fisone, G.,
and Fredholm, B. B. (1999).
Distribution, biochemistry and func-
tion of striatal adenosine A2A receptors.
Prog. Neurobiol. 59, 355–396.
Szczypka, M. S., Kwok, K., Brot, M. D.,
Marck, B. T., Matsumoto, A. M.,
Donahue, B. A., and Palmiter, R. D.
(2001). Dopamine production in the
caudate putamen restores feeding in
dopamine-defi cient mice. Neuron 30,
819–828.
Takahashi, R. N., Pamplona, F. A., and
Prediger, R. D. (2008). Adenosine
receptor antagonists for cognitive dys-
function: a review of animal studies.
Front. Biosci. 13, 2614–2632.
Ungerstedt, U. (1971). Adipsia and
aphagia after 6-hydroxydopamine
induced degeneration of the nigro-
striatal dopamine system. Acta Physiol.
Scand. Suppl. 367, 95–122.
van den Bos, R., van der Harst, J.,
Jonkman, S., Schilders, M., and
Spruijt, B. (2006). Rats assess costs
and benefits according to an inter-
nal standard. Behav. Brain Res. 171,
350–354.
Vezina, P., Lorrain, D. S., Arnold, G. M.,
Austin, J. D., and Suto, N. (2002).
Sensitization of midbrain dopamine
neuron reactivity promotes the pur-
suit of amphetamine. J. Neurosci. 22,
4654–4662.
Vuchinich, R. E., and Heather, N.
(2003). Introduction: Overview of
behavioural economic perspectives
on substance use and addiction.
In Choice, Behavioral Economics
and Addiction, R. E. Vuchinich and
N. Heather, eds (Oxford, Elsevier),
pp. 1–31.
Wachtel, S. R., Ortengren, A., and de
Wit, H. (2002). The effects of acute
haloperidol or risperidone on subjec-
tive responses to methamphetamine
in healthy volunteers. Drug Alcohol
Depend. 68, 23–33.
Wacker, J., Dillon, D. G., and
Pizzagalli, D. A. (2009). The role of
the nucleus accumbens and rostral
anterior cingulate cortex in anhe-
donia: integration of resting EEG,
fMRI, and volumetric techniques.
Neuroimage 46, 327–337.
Wakabayashi, K. T., Fields, H. L., and
Nicola, S. M. (2004). Dissociation
of the role of nucleus accumbens
dopamine in responding to reward-
predictive cues and waiting for
reward. Behav. Brain Res. 154,
19–30.
Wallace, M., Singer, G., Finlay, J., and
Gibson, S. (1983). The effect of
6-OHDA lesions of the nucleus
accumbens septum on schedule-
induced drinking, wheelrunning
and corticosterone levels in the rat.
Pharmacol. Biochem. Behav. 18,
129–136.
Walton, M. E., Bannerman, D. M.,
Alterescu, K., and Rushworth, M. F. S.
(2003). Functional specialization
within medial frontal cortex of the
anterior cingulated for evaluating
effort-related decisions. J. Neurosci.
23, 6475–6479.
Walton, M. E., Kennerley, S. W.,
Bannerman, D. M., Phillips, P. E., and
Rushworth, M. F. (2006). Weighing
up the benefi ts of work: behavioral
and neural analyses of effort-related
decision making. Neural Netw. 19,
1302–1314.
Wardas, J., Konieczny, J., and Lorenc-
Koci, E. (2001). SCH 58261, an
A2A adenosine receptor antago-
nist, counteracts parkinsonian-like
muscle rigidity in rats. Synapse 41,
160–171.
Williams, B. A. (1988). Reinforcement,
choice, and response strength. In
Stevens’ Handbook of Experimental
Psychology Vol. 2, R. C. Atkinson, R. J.
Herrnstein, G. Lindsey and R. D. Luce,
eds (New York, John Wiley and Sons),
pp. 167–174.
Wise, R. A. (2004). Dopamine, learning
and motivation. Nat. Rev. Neurosci.
5, 483–494.
Woolverton, W. L., and Ranaldi, R.
(2002). Comparison of the reinforc-
ing effi cacy of two dopamine D2-like
receptor agonists in rhesus monkeys
using a progressive-ratio schedule of
reinforcement. Pharmacol. Biochem.
Behav. 72, 803–809.
Worden, L. T., Shahriari, M., Farrar, A. M.,
Sink, K. S., Hockemeyer. J., Müller, C.,
Salamone, JD. (2009). The adenosine
A2A antagonist MSX-3 reverses the
effort-related effects of dopamine
blockade: differential interaction
with D1 and D2 family antagonists.
Psychopharmacology 203, 489–499.
Yin, H. H., Ostlund, S. B., and Balleine, B. W.
(2008). Reward-guided learning
beyond dopamine in the nucleus
accumbens: the integrative functions
of cortico-basal ganglia networks. Eur.
J. Neurosci. 28, 1437–1448.
Young, A. M. (2004). Increased extracel-
lular dopamine in nucleus accumbens
in response to unconditioned and con-
ditioned aversive stimuli: studies using
1 min microdialysis in rats. J. Neurosci.
Methods 138, 57–63.
Conflict of Interest Statement: The
authors declare that the research was con-
ducted in the absence of any commercial or
fi nancial relationships that could be con-
strued as a potential confl ict of interest.
Received: 09 June 2009; paper pending pub-
lished: 17 June 2009; accepted: 21 July 2009;
published online: 07 September 2009.
Citation: Salamone JD, Correa M,
Farrar AM, Nunes EJ and Pardo M (2009)
Dopamine, behavioral economics, and
effort. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 3:13. doi:
10.3389/neuro.08.013.2009
Copyright © 2009 Salamone, Correa,
Farrar, Nunes and Pardo. This is an open-
access article subject to an exclusive license
agreement between the authors and the
Frontiers Research Foundation, which
permits unrestricted use, distribution, and
reproduction in any medium, provided the
original authors and source are credited.