Introduction
Debate continues over the precise causal contribution made by mesolimbic dopamine systems to reward. There are three competing explanatory categories: ‘liking’, learning, and ‘wanting’. Does dopamine mostly mediate the hedonic impact of reward (‘liking’)? Does it instead mediate learned predictions of future reward, prediction error teaching signals and stamp in associative links (learning)? Or does dopamine motivate the pursuit of rewards by attributing incentive salience to reward-related stimuli (‘wanting’)? Each hypothesis is evaluated here, and it is suggested that the incentive salience or ‘wanting’ hypothesis of dopamine function may be consistent with more evidence than either learning or ‘liking’. In brief, recent evidence indicates that dopamine is neither necessary nor sufficient to mediate changes in hedonic ‘liking’ for sensory pleasures. Other recent evidence indicates that dopamine is not needed for new learning, and not sufficient to directly mediate learning by causing teaching or prediction signals. By contrast, growing evidence indicates that dopamine does contribute causally to incentive salience. Dopamine appears necessary for normal ‘wanting’, and dopamine activation can be sufficient to enhance cue-triggered incentive salience. Drugs of abuse that promote dopamine signals short circuit and sensitize dynamic mesolimbic mechanisms that evolved to attribute incentive salience to rewards. Such drugs interact with incentive salience integrations of Pavlovian associative information with physiological state signals. That interaction sets the stage to cause compulsive ‘wanting’ in addiction, but also provides opportunities for experiments to disentangle ‘wanting’, ‘liking’, and learning hypotheses. Results from studies that exploited those opportunities are described here.

/pdf/the-debate-over-dopamine-s-role-in-reward-the-case-for-2f5liljkhc.pdf

The debate over dopamine’s role in reward: the case for incentive salience

https://www.lsa.umich.edu/psych/research&labs/berridge/publications/2015%20Berridge%20&%20Kringelbach%20Pleasure%20systems%20in%20the%20brain%20-%20Neuron.pdf

Pleasure Systems in the Brain

Background
Over the last several years, it has become apparent that there are critical 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. Hypotheses related to DA function are undergoing a substantial restructuring, such that the classic emphasis on hedonia and primary reward is giving way to diverse lines of research that focus on aspects of instrumental learning, reward prediction, incentive motivation, and behavioral activation.

/pdf/effort-related-functions-of-nucleus-accumbens-dopamine-and-jypviu5lkm.pdf

Effort-related functions of nucleus accumbens dopamine and associated forebrain circuits.

Rewards are both "liked" and "wanted," and those 2 words seem almost interchangeable. However, the brain circuitry that mediates the psychological process of "wanting" a particular reward is dissociable from circuitry that mediates the degree to which it is "liked." Incentive salience or "wanting," a form of motivation, is generated by large and robust neural systems that include mesolimbic dopamine. By comparison, "liking," or the actual pleasurable impact of reward consumption, is mediated by smaller and fragile neural systems, and is not dependent on dopamine. The incentive-sensitization theory posits the essence of drug addiction to be excessive amplification specifically of psychological "wanting," especially triggered by cues, without necessarily an amplification of "liking." This is because of long-lasting changes in dopamine-related motivation systems of susceptible individuals, called "neural sensitization." A quarter-century after its proposal, evidence has continued to grow in support the incentive-sensitization theory. Further, its scope is now expanding to include diverse behavioral addictions and other psychopathologies. (PsycINFO Database Record

Liking, wanting, and the incentive-sensitization theory of addiction.

Reward contains separable psychological components of learning, incentive motivation and pleasure. Most computational models have focused only on the learning component of reward, but the motivational component is equally important in reward circuitry, and even more directly controls behavior. Modeling the motivational component requires recognition of additional control factors besides learning. Here I discuss how mesocorticolimbic mechanisms generate the motivation component of incentive salience. Incentive salience takes Pavlovian learning and memory as one input and as an equally important input takes neurobiological state factors (e.g. drug states, appetite states, satiety states) that can vary independently of learning. Neurobiological state changes can produce unlearned fluctuations or even reversals in the ability of a previously learned reward cue to trigger motivation. Such fluctuations in cue-triggered motivation can dramatically depart from all previously learned values about the associated reward outcome. Thus, one consequence of the difference between incentive salience and learning can be to decouple cue-triggered motivation of the moment from previously learned values of how good the associated reward has been in the past. Another consequence can be to produce irrationally strong motivation urges that are not justified by any memories of previous reward values (and without distorting associative predictions of future reward value). Such irrationally strong motivation may be especially problematic in addiction. To understand these phenomena, future models of mesocorticolimbic reward function should address the neurobiological state factors that participate to control generation of incentive salience.

/pdf/from-prediction-error-to-incentive-salience-mesolimbic-21jpp399qc.pdf

From prediction error to incentive salience: mesolimbic computation of reward motivation.

Objective: Preclinical studies indicate that dopaminergic transmission in the basal ganglia may be involved in processing of both pleasant and unpleasant stimuli. Given this, the aim of the present study was to assess taste responses to sweet, bitter, sour, and salty substances in patients with Parkinson's disease (PD). 

Methods: Rated intensity and pleasantness of filter paper discs soaked in sucrose (10–60%), quinine (0.025–0.5%), citric acid (0.25–4.0%), or sodium chloride (1.25–20%) solutions was evaluated in 30 patients with PD and in 33 healthy controls. Paper discs soaked in deionised water served as control stimuli. In addition, reactivity to 100 ml samples of chocolate and vanilla milk was assessed in both groups. Taste detection thresholds were assessed by means of electrogustometry. Sociodemographic and neuropsychiatric data, including cigarette smoking, alcohol consumption, tea and coffee drinking, depressive symptoms, and cognitive functioning were collected. 

Results: In general, perceived intensity, pleasantness, and identification of the sucrose, quinine, citric acid, or sodium chloride samples did not differ between the PD patients and controls. Intensity ratings of the filter papers soaked in 0.025% quinine were significantly higher in the PD patients compared with the control group. No inter-group differences were found in taste responses to chocolate and vanilla milk. Electrogustometric thresholds were significantly (p = 0.001) more sensitive in the PD patients. 

Conclusions: PD is not associated with any major alterations in responses to pleasant or unpleasant taste stimuli. Patients with PD may present enhanced taste acuity in terms of electrogustometric threshold.

https://jnnp.bmj.com/content/jnnp/76/1/40.full.pdf

Wlodzimierz Kuran

Papers

Taste responses in patients with Parkinson’s disease

Sweet liking in patients with Parkinson's disease

Depressive symptoms and taste reactivity in humans