Back

Effects of dopamine and opioid receptor antagonism on the neural processing of social and non-social rewards

Massaccesi, C.; Korb, S.; Götzendorfer, S.; Chiappini, E.; Willeit, M.; Lundström, J. N.; Windischberger, C.; Eisenegger, C.; Silani, G.

2023-06-17 neuroscience
10.1101/2023.06.16.545306 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Rewards are a broad category of stimuli inducing approach behavior to aid survival. Extensive evidence from animal research has shown that wanting (the motivation to pursue a reward) and liking (the pleasure associated with its consumption) are mostly regulated by dopaminergic and opioidergic activity in dedicated brain areas. However, less is known about the neuroanatomy of dopaminergic and opioidergic regulation of reward processing in humans, especially when considering different types of rewards (i.e., social and non-social). To fill this gap of knowledge, we combined dopaminergic and opioidergic antagonism (via amisulpride and naltrexone administration) with functional neuroimaging to investigate the neurochemical and neuroanatomical bases of wanting and liking of matched non-social (food) and social (interpersonal touch) rewards, using a randomized, between-subject, placebo-controlled, double-blind design. While at the behavioral level no drug effect was observed, brain activity was modulated by the administered compounds. In particular, opioid antagonism, compared to placebo, was associated with reduced activity in the medial orbitofrontal cortex during consumption of the most valued social and non-social rewards. Dopamine antagonism, however, had no clear effects on brain activity in response to rewards anticipation. These findings provide insights into the neurobiology of human reward processing and suggest a similar opioidergic regulation of the neural responses to social and non-social reward consumption.

Matching journals

The top 7 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.