Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

  • Loading metrics

The Dopamine Augmenter L-DOPA Does Not Affect Positive Mood in Healthy Human Volunteers

Abstract

Dopamine neurotransmission influences approach toward rewards and reward-related cues. The best cited interpretation of this effect proposes that dopamine mediates the pleasure that commonly accompanies reward. This hypothesis has received support in some animal models and a few studies in humans. However, direct assessments of the effect of transiently increasing dopamine neurotransmission have been largely limited to the use of psychostimulant drugs, which elevate brain levels of multiple neurotransmitters in addition to dopamine. In the present study we tested the effect of more selectively elevating dopamine neurotransmission, as produced by administration of the immediate dopamine precursor, L-DOPA (0, 100/25, 200/50 mg, Sinemet), in healthy human volunteers. Neither dose altered positive mood. The results suggest that dopamine neurotransmission does not directly influence positive mood in humans.

Introduction

Mesolimbic dopamine (DA) neurotransmission influences the ability of rewards to elicit focused interest and approach [1][5]. One early and still frequently cited interpretation is that the transmitter mediates pleasure [6]. This possibility was first suggested following observations that neuroleptic medications decreased amphetamine-induced subjective “high” in stimulant drug abusers [7][9] and produced a sense of “psychic indifference” in patients with schizophrenia [10] while extended treatment with high doses of L-DOPA led to hypomanic states in patients with bipolar mood disorders [11]. Subsequently, a series of carefully controlled and influential animal studies indicated that increases in DA neurotransmission augmented instrumental responding for electrical stimulation of the brain (ESB) [12] while decreased DA neurotransmission disrupted responding for drugs, food, and ESB [13][18]. The latter effects were not attributable to compromised motor function since low doses of DA receptor antagonists increased instrumental responding while higher doses produced biphasic increases and decreases. These observations led to the suggestion that DA receptor antagonists reduced the ability to experience pleasure [6].

Some recent work is at least consistent with the anhedonia hypothesis. For example, individual differences in the magnitude of drug-induced striatal DA responses correlate with approach-related personality traits [19][22] and the substance's positive subjective effects [23][31]. In the converse experiments, mood-lowering effects of antipsychotic medications are predicted by their extent of DA D2 receptor blockade [32][34].

Other work, though, has seemed inconsistent with a role of DA in pleasure. First, in both humans [35], [36] and in laboratory animals [3], [37] DA release in the ventral striatum can also be evoked by aversive stimuli. Second, in operant conditioning paradigms, DA release increases and then peaks just prior to a lever press for reward and then gradually decreases thereafter [38], [39]. With experience DA comes to be released in response to cues associated with the reward [38][40] but not when actually receiving the reward [40], [41]. Third, an extensive series of studies has indicated that neither DA antagonists nor DA lesions alter responses in the ‘taste reactivity’ paradigm, an animal model of eating-related pleasure [2], [42], [43]. Finally, the majority of studies have failed to replicate an ability of neuroleptic medications or other DA lowering manipulations to decrease drug-induced pleasure in humans [44][58].

Given the above controversies, the present study aimed to test the effect of a more selective DA augmenter, L-DOPA, on mood states in healthy human volunteers. Since individual differences in approach-related traits predict differences in DA reactivity, it was further hypothesized that those who scored higher on these traits would exhibit greater mood elevation.

Results

There were no significant Group x Time interaction effects for any of the POMS subscales (all ps>0.05, see Table 1), nor were there significant main effects of personality (all ps>0.05). A three-way Group x Personality subgroup x Time interaction raised the possibility that NS2 predicted differential POMS Agreeable-Hostile responses to L-DOPA, but this effect was no longer significant when VAS “Nauseous” scores were entered as covariates (F6, 114 = 0.804, p>0.05). Effects on nausea were mild (peak change = 1.4/10), and statistically significant for the 200 mg L-DOPA dose only (F6, 126 = 2.839, p<0.05) (see Table 1).

Discussion

In the present study, the immediate DA precursor, L-DOPA, did not affect positive subjective states in healthy human volunteers, neither in the groups as a whole nor in subgroups based on hypothesized DA-related personality traits. These findings extend the results from previous drug challenge studies. In contrast to non-specific DA augmenters, such as psychostimulant drugs, which reliably and potently elevate mood in healthy human volunteers [31], [53], [59][61], accumulating evidence indicates that more selective DA receptor agonists do not (Table 2).

thumbnail
Table 2. The effect of dopamine-enhancing agents on positive mood states in healthy humans.

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0028370.t002

The inability to detect effects of L-DOPA on positive mood does not preclude a relationship between DA neurotransmission, personality traits and goal-directed behavior [11], [19][22], [62], [63]; moreover, enhancements in goal-directed behavior may lead to elevated mood [11], [62][64]. However, the present results suggest that drug-induced mood-elevating effects are more closely related to neurotransmitters other than DA [3], [37], [62][69], perhaps serotonin, norepinephrine, glutamate, GABA, endocannabinoids and endogenous opioids [2], [70][75].

If DA's influence on reward seeking behaviors is not accounted for by enhanced pleasure, this raises the question of why it has these effects. Perhaps the best-supported alternative interpretation from the animal literature proposes that DA enhances the incentive salience of reward related cues, increasing their ability to elicit focused interest and sustain effortful seeking [2], [43], [76]. This conclusion is largely based on extensive evidence that decrements in DA neurotransmission reduce the willingness to work for rewards [37], [76] without changing responses in an index of feeding related pleasure [2], [43]. Accumulating work in humans supports this interpretation also ([62], Table 2). For example, in a series of studies conducted here, decreasing DA neurotransmission disrupted the tendency of subjects to respond preferentially to reward-related cues [55] and decreased the willingness to work for abused drugs [53], [58] and monetary reward [Cawley et al, unpublished observations] on progressive ratio breakpoint schedules; each of these effects was produced without reductions in pleasure. Indeed, the majority of studies in humans have failed to replicate an ability of various DA lowering manipulations to diminish drug-induced pleasure [45][58].

The present results should be considered in light of the following. First, there was no direct measure of the ability of L-DOPA to increase DA, leaving open the possibility that mood changes were not detected because L-DOPA failed to increase DA levels. However, this seems unlikely since similar doses of L-DOPA given to healthy human volunteers induce behavioural effects [77][79] and increase striatal DA synthesis [80]. Pre-clinical studies confirm that L-DOPA increases DA levels in the intact brains of healthy animals, albeit to a lesser extent than in animal models of Parkinson's disease [81]. Although, to our knowledge, there are no reports of L-DOPA induced DA release in healthy humans, the administration of 250 mg more than doubles ventricular CSF levels of the DA metabolite, DOPAC [82]. Moreover, robust L-DOPA induced DA responses have been seen in patients with Parkinson's disease [83]; intriguingly, these effects are largest in those who have developed pathological gambling and the “DA dysregulation syndrome” [84], [85]. Moreover, in these patients, larger L-DOPA-induced DA responses are associated with higher novelty- and fun-seeking personality traits, greater L-DOPA-induced psychomotor activation, and greater drug “wanting” but not drug “liking” [84]. Testing the effect of larger increases in DA neurotransmission in healthy human volunteers will be difficult, though, since higher doses of all currently available drugs that selectively augment DA neurotransmission are limited by side effects such as nausea, vomiting, dizziness and drowsiness. Indeed, this limitation guided our selection of L-DOPA doses in the present study. Second, we used a median split to determine the high and low sub-groups for each of the approach-related personality traits. It might be necessary to recruit participants from the more extreme ends of the normative population distribution for each of these traits in order to detect a differential effect of a DAergic drug, since individual differences in DA neurotransmission might be more pronounced in these more extreme ends of the distribution. This noted, a post hoc examination of our more extreme upper and lower quartiles also failed to identify an effect on mood (all p-values≥0.15). Finally, it is possible that an effect on mood would have been seen with a larger sample size. However, this is considered unlikely. The single largest effect size was peak change to ‘Energetic-Tired’ scores (d = 0.339), and this would have required a sample of 138. All other effects would require samples larger than 200. Following corrections for multiple comparisons, these numbers increase further again.

In conclusion, L-DOPA failed to produce changes in positive mood states in a group of healthy human volunteers. These findings add to an accumulating literature suggesting that increases in DA neurotransmission are not sufficient to directly generate positive emotions.

Methods

Ethics Statement

The study was carried out in accordance with the Declaration of Helsinki and was approved by the Research Ethics Board of the McGill University Hospital Centre. All subjects gave informed written consent.

Subjects

Fifty participants were recruited from the McGill University campus through online classified advertisements. Forty-eight men and women (29 females and 19 males; mean age 21.9±3.7 years) completed the study. One participant was excluded due to vomiting at the beginning of the test session and another was excluded because of failure to comprehend the task instructions. All were healthy, as determined by a physical exam, standard laboratory tests, and an interview with the Structured Clinical Interview for DSM-IV, axis I [86]. None had a personal history of axis I psychiatric disorders. On the test day, all subjects tested negative on a urine drug screen sensitive to cocaine, opiates, phencyclidine, barbiturates, Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol, and amphetamines (Triage Panel for Drugs of Abuse, Biosite Diagnostics©, San Diego, CA).

Procedure

Participants completed the personality questionnaires on the same day as the psychiatric interview, while the test session took place on a separate day. Participants also completed a battery of cognitive tasks during the test session, but these results will be reported elsewhere. Participants were assigned to one of three drug groups (n = 16 per group): placebo, L-DOPA/carbidopa (Sinemet, 100mg/25 mg) or L-DOPA/carbidopa (Sinemet, 200 mg/50 mg), in a randomized, double blind, between-groups design. A combination drug, including the peripheral decarboxylase inhibitor carbidopa, was used to prevent the conversion of L-DOPA to DA before it entered the brain. Low doses of L-DOPA were administered in an effort to avoid the potential confound of side effects such as nausea, vomiting and dizziness. On the test day, participants arrived in the laboratory at 11:30 AM and completed baseline subjective state questionnaires and drug screening. At 12:30 PM, participants ingested two green capsules containing either placebo or one of the two doses of L-DOPA. Participants completed the mood questionnaires at three additional times: 45 minutes, 105 minutes and 165 minutes post-capsule ingestion. Cognitive testing commenced 45 minutes following ingestion of the capsules, coinciding with the time to peak blood concentration of L-DOPA and lasted until 3:30 PM. Female participants who were not taking oral contraceptives were tested within 10 days of the start of menstruation because previous studies have shown that females are more sensitive to reward in the follicular compared to the luteal phase of the menstrual cycle [87][89].

Personality Measures

All subjects completed the Tridimensional Personality Questionnaire (TPQ) [90], Substance Use Risk Profile (SURPS) [91] and the Neuroticism-Extroversion-Openness Five Factor Inventory (NEO-FFI) [92]. Of specific interest in the present study were the TPQ Novelty Seeking factor and two of its subscales (NS1, Exploratory-Excitability and NS2, Impulsiveness), the SURPS factors Impulsivity and Sensation Seeking, and the NEO-FFI factor Extraversion. Each drug group was further sub-divided into high and low groups based on a median split of these personality factor scores for each subject.

Mood and Subjective Effects Measures

Subjective effects were measured with the bipolar Profile of Mood States (POMS), a sensitive measure of small rapid changes in mood [93], [94], and a visual analog scale (VAS) labeled “Nauseous”. The POMS is comprised of 72 adjectives that describe various mood states. Participants indicate the extent to which they feel these states at each time point on a scale ranging from 0 (“not at all”) to 4 (“extremely”). The POMS items are then converted into 6 empirically derived sub-scales: Elated-Depressed, Composed-Anxious, Agreeable-Hostile, Confident-Unsure, Energetic-Tired and Clearheaded-Confused. Both questionnaires were administered at four times on the test day: at baseline, and at 45, 105 and 165 minutes post-capsule ingestion.

Data Analyses

Data analyses were conducted using SPSS Statistics (version 18.0; IBM, Chicago, Illinois). Each drug group was further subdivided based on a median split of scores for the approach-related personality traits of Impulsivity, Extraversion, Sensation Seeking and Novelty Seeking, yielding high and low groups for each factor. Three separate analyses were conducted for TPQ Novelty Seeking: the total score as well as scores for the Exploratory-Excitability (NS1) and Impulsiveness (NS2) subscales. Three-way mixed design ANOVAs were used to assess the effects of drug group (independent factor, 3 levels: placebo, 100 mg L-DOPA, 200 mg L-DOPA) and personality trait sub-group (independent factor, 2 levels: high and low) across time (repeated factor, 4 levels: baseline, +45 minutes, +105 minutes and +165 minutes) for all of the mood and subjective effects measures. Two-way independent groups ANOVAs were used to assess the effects of drug group and personality trait subgroup on POMS absolute peak change scores, calculated as the largest difference between any of the three time points and baseline. Post-hoc Least Significant Differences (LSD) tests were used whenever an ANOVA yielded a significant result. The significance for all statistical tests was p<0.05.

Author Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: ML RP. Performed the experiments: JL ML CB. Analyzed the data: JL. Wrote the paper: JL ML. Revising manuscript for intellectual content: CB RP ML.

References

  1. 1. Wise RA, Rompre PP (1989) Brain dopamine and reward. Annu Rev Psychol 40: 191–225.
  2. 2. Berridge KC, Robinson TE (1998) What is the role of dopamine in reward: Hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience? Brain Res Rev 28: 309–369.
  3. 3. Ikemoto S, Panksepp J (1999) The role of nucleus accumbens dopamine in motivated behavior: A unifying interpretation with special reference to reward-seeking. Brain Res Rev 31: 6–41.
  4. 4. Phillips AG, Pfaus J, Blaha C (1991) Dopamine and motivated behavior: Insights provided by in vivo analyses. In: Willner P, Scheel-Kruger J, editors. The Mesolimbic Dopamine System: From Motivation to Action. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd. pp. 199–224.
  5. 5. Stewart J, de Wit H, Eikelboom R (1984) Role of unconditioned and conditioned drug effects in the self-administration of opiates and stimulants. Psychol Rev 91: 251–268.
  6. 6. Wise RA (1982) Neuroleptics and operant-behavior - the anhedonia hypothesis. Behav Brain Sci 5: 39–53.
  7. 7. Gunne LM, Anggard E, Jonsson LE (1972) Clinical trials with amphetamine-blocking drugs. Psychiatr Neurol Neurochir 75: 225–226.
  8. 8. Jonsson LE (1972) Pharmacological blockade of amphetamine effects in amphetamine dependent subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 4: 206–211.
  9. 9. Jonsson LE, Anggard E, Gunne LM (1971) Blockade of intravenous amphetamine euphoria in man. Clin Pharmacol Ther 12: 889–896.
  10. 10. Singh MM, Smith JM (1973) Kinetics and dynamics of response to haloperidol in acute schizophrenia–A longitudinal study of the therapeutic process. Compr Psychiatry 14: 393–414.
  11. 11. Murphy DL, Brodie HKH, Goodwin FK, Bunney WE Jr (1971) Regular induction of hypomania by L-DOPA in “bipolar” manic-depressive disorder patients. Nature 229: 135–136.
  12. 12. Phillips AG, Fibiger HC (1973) Dopaminergic and noradrenergic substrates of positive reinforcement: differential effects of d- and l-amphetamine. Science 179: 575–577.
  13. 13. Fouriezos G, Hansson P, Wise RA (1978) Neuroleptic-induced attenuation of brain stimulation reward in rats. J Comp Physiol Psychol 92: 661–671.
  14. 14. Fouriezos G, Wise RA (1976) Pimozide-induced extinction of intracranial self-stimulation: response patterns rule out motor or performance deficits. Brain Res 103: 377–380.
  15. 15. Franklin KB, McCoy SN (1979) Pimozide-induced extinction in rats: stimulus control of responding rules out motor deficit. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 11: 71–75.
  16. 16. Wise RA (1978) Catecholamine theories of reward: A critical review. Brain Res 152: 215–247.
  17. 17. Yokel RA, Wise RA (1975) Increased lever pressing for amphetamine after pimozide in rats: implications for a dopamine theory of reward. Science 187: 547–549.
  18. 18. Yokel RA, Wise RA (1976) Attenuation of intravenous amphetamine reinforcement by central dopamine blockade in rats. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 48: 311–318.
  19. 19. Leyton M, Boileau I, Benkelfat C, Diksic M, Baker G, et al. (2002) Amphetamine-induced increases in extracellular dopamine, drug wanting and novelty seeking: A PET [11C]raclopride study in healthy men. Neuropsychopharmacology 27: 1027–1035.
  20. 20. Boileau I, Assaad JM, Pihl RO, Benkelfat C, Leyton M, et al. (2003) Alcohol promotes dopamine release in the human nucleus accumbens. Synapse 49: 226–231.
  21. 21. Buckholtz JW, Treadway MT, Cowan RL, Woodward ND, Benning SD, et al. (2010) Mesolimbic dopamine reward system hypersensitivity in individuals with psychopathic traits. Nat Neurosci 13: 419–421.
  22. 22. Buckholtz JW, Treadway MT, Cowan RL, Woodward ND, Li R, et al. (2010) Dopaminergic network differences in human impulsivity. Science 329: 532.
  23. 23. Oswald LM, Wong DF, McCaul M, Zhou Y, Kuwabara H, et al. (2005) Relationships among ventral striatal dopamine release, cortisol secretion, and subjective responses to amphetamine. Neuropsychopharmacology 30: 821–832.
  24. 24. Oswald LM, Wong DF, Zhou Y, Kumar A, Brasic J, et al. (2007) Impulsivity and chronic stress are associated with amphetamine-induced striatal dopamine release. NeuroImage 36: 153–166.
  25. 25. Abi-Dargham A, Kegeles LS, Martinez D, Innis RB, Laruelle M (2003) Dopamine mediation of positive reinforcing effects of amphetamine in stimulant naive healthy volunteers: Results from a large cohort. Eur Neuropsychopharmacol 13: 459–468.
  26. 26. Boileau I, Dagher A, Leyton M, Welfeld K, Booij L, et al. (2007) Conditioned dopamine release in humans: A positron emission tomography [11C]raclopride study with amphetamine. J Neurosci 27: 3998–4003.
  27. 27. Drevets WC, Gautier C, Price JC, Kupfer DJ, Kinahan PE, et al. (2001) Amphetamine-induced dopamine release in human ventral striatum correlates with euphoria. Biol Psychiatry 49: 81–96.
  28. 28. Laruelle M, Abi-Dargham A, van Dyck CH, Rosenblatt W, Zea-Ponce Y, et al. (1995) SPECT imaging of striatal dopamine release after amphetamine challenge. J Nucl Med 36: 1182–1190.
  29. 29. Martinez D, Slifstein M, Broft A, Mawlawi O, Hwang DR, et al. (2003) Imaging human mesolimbic dopamine transmission with positron emission tomography. Part II: amphetamine-induced dopamine release in the functional subdivisions of the striatum. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab 23: 285–300.
  30. 30. Munro CA, McCaul ME, Wong DF, Oswald LM, Zhou Y, et al. (2006) Sex differences in striatal dopamine release in healthy adults. Biol Psychiatry 59: 966–974.
  31. 31. Volkow ND, Wang GJ, Fowler JS, Logan J, Gatley SJ, et al. (1999) Reinforcing effects of psychostimulants in humans are associated with increases in brain dopamine and occupancy of D(2) receptors. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 291: 409–415.
  32. 32. Bressan RA, Costa DC, Jones HM, Ell PJ, Pilowsky LS (2002) Typical antipsychotic drugs – D(2) receptor occupancy and depressive symptoms in schizophrenia. Schizophr Res 56: 31–36.
  33. 33. de Haan L, Lavalaye J, Linszen D, Dingemans PMAJ, Booij J (2000) Subjective experience and striatal dopamine D-2 receptor occupancy in patients with schizophrenia stabilized by olanzapine or risperidone. Am J Psychiatry 157: 1019–1020.
  34. 34. Mizrahi R, Rusjan P, Agid O, Graff A, Mamo DC, et al. (2007) Adverse subjective experience with antipsychotics and its relationship to striatal and extrastriatal D-2 receptors: A PET study in schizophrenia. Am J Psychiatry 164: 630–637.
  35. 35. Pruessner JC, Champagne F, Meaney MJ, 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.
  36. 36. Scott DJ, Heitzeg MM, Koeppe RA, Stohler CS, Zubieta JK (2006) Variations in the human pain stress experience mediated by ventral and dorsal basal ganglia dopamine activity. J Neurosci 26: 10789–10795.
  37. 37. Salamone JD (1994) The involvement of nucleus accumbens dopamine in appetitive and aversive motivation. Behav Brain Res 61: 117–133.
  38. 38. Gratton A, Wise RA (1994) Drug- and behavior-associated changes in dopamine-related electrochemical signals during intravenous cocaine self-administration in rats. J Neurosci 14: 4130–4146.
  39. 39. Kiyatkin EA, Gratton A (1994) Electrochemical monitoring of extracellular dopamine in nucleus accumbens of rats lever-pressing for food. Brain Res 652: 225–234.
  40. 40. Schultz W, Romo R (1990) Dopamine neurons of the monkey midbrain: Contingencies of responses to stimuli eliciting immediate behavioral reactions. J Neurophysiol 63: 607–624.
  41. 41. Gratton A (1996) In vivo analysis of the role of dopamine in stimulant and opiate self-administration. J Psychiatry Neurosci 21: 264–279.
  42. 42. Berridge KC, Venier IL, Robinson TE (1989) Taste reactivity analysis of 6-hydroxydopamine-induced aphagia: Implications for arousal and anhedonia hypotheses of dopamine function. Behav Neurosci 103: 36–45.
  43. 43. Berridge KC (2007) The debate over dopamine's role in reward: The case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology 191: 391–431.
  44. 44. Romach MK, Glue P, Kampman K, Kaplan HL, Somer GR, et al. (1999) Attenuation of the euphoric effects of cocaine by the dopamine D1/D5 antagonist ecopipam (SCH 39166). Arch Gen Psychiatry 56: 1101–1106.
  45. 45. Brauer LH, de Wit H (1996) Subjective responses to d-amphetamine alone and after pimozide pretreatment in normal, healthy volunteers. Biol Psychiatry 39: 26–32.
  46. 46. Brauer LH, de Wit H (1997) High dose pimozide does not block amphetamine-induced euphoria in normal volunteers. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 56: 265–272.
  47. 47. Brauer LH, de Wit H (1995) Role of dopamine in d-amphetamine-induced euphoria in normal, healthy volunteers. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 3: 371–381.
  48. 48. Evans SM, Walsh SL, Levin FR, Foltin RW, Fischman MW, et al. (2001) Effect of flupenthixol on subjective and cardiovascular responses to intravenous cocaine in humans. Drug Alcohol Depend 64: 271–283.
  49. 49. Gawin FH (1986) Neuroleptic reduction of cocaine-induced paranoia but not euphoria? Psychopharmacology (Berl) 90: 142–143.
  50. 50. Haney M, Ward AS, Foltin RW, Fischman MW (2001) Effects of ecopipam, a selective dopamine D1 antagonist, on smoked cocaine self-administration by humans. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 155: 330–337.
  51. 51. Nann-Vernotica E, Donny EC, Bigelow GE, Walsh SL (2001) Repeated administration of the D1/5 antagonist ecopipam fails to attenuate the subjective effects of cocaine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 155: 338–347.
  52. 52. Stine SM, Krystal JH, Petrakis IL, Jatlow PI, Heninger GR, et al. (1997) Effect of alpha-methyl-para-tyrosine on response to cocaine challenge. Biol Psychiatry 42: 181–190.
  53. 53. Barrett SP, Pihl RO, Benkelfat C, Brunelle C, Young SN, et al. (2008) The role of dopamine in alcohol self-administration in humans: individual differences. Eur Neuropsychopharmacology 18: 439–447.
  54. 54. Casey KF, Benkelfat C, Young SN, Leyton M (2006) Lack of effect of acute dopamine precursor depletion in nicotine-dependent smokers. Eur Neuropsychopharmacology 16: 512–520.
  55. 55. Leyton M, aan het Rot M, Booij L, Baker GB, Young SN, et al. (2007) Mood-elevating effects of d-amphetamine and incentive salience: the effect of acute dopamine precursor depletion. J Psychiatry Neurosci 32: 129–136.
  56. 56. Leyton M, Casey KF, Delaney JS, Kolivakis T, Benkelfat C (2005) Cocaine craving, euphoria, and self-administration: A preliminary study of the effect of catecholamine precursor depletion. Behav Neurosci 119: 1619–1627.
  57. 57. Leyton M, Young SN, Blier P, Baker GB, Pihl RO, et al. (2000) Acute tyrosine depletion and alcohol ingestion in healthy women. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 24: 459–464.
  58. 58. Venugopalan VV, Casey KF, O'Hara C, O'Loughlin J, Benkelfat C, et al. (2011) Acute phenylalanine/tyrosine depletion reduces motivation to smoke across stages of addiction. Neuropsychopharmacology 36: 2469–2476.
  59. 59. Acheson A, de Wit H (2008) Bupropion improves attention but does not affect impulsive behavior in healthy young adults. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 16: 113–123.
  60. 60. de Wit H, Enggasser JL, Richards JB (2002) Acute administration of d-amphetamine decreases impulsivity in healthy volunteers. Neuropsychopharmacology 27: 813–825.
  61. 61. Hamidovic A, Dlugos A, Skol A, Palmer AA, de Wit H (2009) Evaluation of genetic variability in the dopamine receptor D2 in relation to behavioral inhibition and impulsivity/sensation seeking: an exploratory study with d-amphetamine in healthy participants. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 17: 374–383.
  62. 62. Leyton M (2009) The neurobiology of desire: Dopamine and the regulation of mood and motivational states in humans. In: Kringelbach M L, Berridge K C, editors. Pleasures of the Brain. New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 222–243.
  63. 63. Willner P (1985) Depression: A Psychobiological Synthesis. New York: John Wiley & Sons. 597 p.
  64. 64. Treadway MT, Zald DH (2011) Reconsidering anhedonia in depression: Lessons from translational neuroscience. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 35: 537–555.
  65. 65. Salamone JD, Correa M, Farrar A, Mingote SM (2007) Effort-related functions of nucleus accumbens dopamine and associated forebrain circuits. Psychopharmacology 191: 461–482.
  66. 66. Berridge KC (2007) The debate over dopamine's role in reward: The case for incentive salience. Psychopharmacology 191: 391–431.
  67. 67. Ashby FG, Isen AM, Turken AU (1999) A neuropsychological theory of positive affect and its influence on cognition. Psychol Rev 106: 529–550.
  68. 68. Burgdorf J, Panksepp J (2006) The neurobiology of positive emotions. Neurosci Biobehav Rev 30: 173–187.
  69. 69. Wise RA (2008) Dopamine and reward: The anhedonia hypothesis 30 years on. Neurotox Res 14: 169–183.
  70. 70. Rothman RB, Baumann MH, Dersch CM, Romero DV, Rice KC, et al. (2001) Amphetamine-type central nervous system stimulants release norepinephrine more potently than they release dopamine and serotonin. Synapse 39: 32–41.
  71. 71. Pecina S, Smith KS, Berridge KC (2006) Hedonic hot spots in the brain. Neuroscientist 12: 500–511.
  72. 72. Richard JM, Berridge KC (2011) Metabotropic glutamate receptor blockade in nucleus accumbens shell shifts affective valence towards fear and disgust. Eur J Neurosci 33: 736–747.
  73. 73. Young SN, Leyton M (2002) The role of serotonin in human mood and social interaction. Insight from altered tryptophan levels. Pharmacol Biochem Behav 71: 857–865.
  74. 74. Setiawan E, Pihl RO, Cox SM, Gianoulakis C, Palmour RM, et al. (2011) The effect of naltrexone on alcohol's stimulant properties and self-administration behavior in social drinkers: Influence of gender and genotype. Alcohol Clin Exp Res 35: 1–8.
  75. 75. Mahler SV, Smith KS, Berridge KC (2007) Endocannabinoid hedonic hotspot for sensory pleasure: Anandamide in nucleus accumbens shell enhances ‘liking’ of a sweet reward. Neuropsychopharmacology 32: 2267–2278.
  76. 76. Salamone JD, Correa M, Farrar AM, Nunes EJ, Pardo M (2009) Dopamine, behavioral economics, and effort. Front Behav Neurosci 3: 13.
  77. 77. Eisenegger C, Knoch D, Ebstein RP, Gianotti LR, Sandor PS, et al. (2010) Dopamine receptor D4 polymorphism predicts the effect of L-DOPA on gambling behavior. Biol Psychiatry 67: 702–706.
  78. 78. Floel A, Garraux G, Xu B, Breitenstein C, Knecht S, et al. (2008) Levodopa increases memory encoding and dopamine release in the striatum in the elderly. Neurobiol Aging 29: 267–279.
  79. 79. Pine A, Shiner T, Seymour B, Dolan RJ (2010) Dopamine, time, and impulsivity in humans. J Neurosci 30: 8888–8896.
  80. 80. Kumakura Y, Danielsen EH, Reilhac A, Gjedde A, Cumming P (2004) Levodopa effect on [18F]fluorodopa influx to brain: Normal volunteers and patients with Parkinson's disease. Acta Neurol Scand 110: 188–195.
  81. 81. Rodriguez M, Morales I, Gonzalez-Mora JL, Gomez I, Sabate M, et al. (2007) Different levodopa actions on the extracellular dopamine pools in the rat striatum. Synapse 61: 61–71.
  82. 82. Raftopoulos C, Dethy S, Laute MA, Goldman S, Naini AB, et al. (1996) Slow increase of homovanillic acid in cerebrospinal fluid after levodopa administration. Movement Disorders 11: 59–62.
  83. 83. de la Fuente-Fernandez R, Sossi V, Huang Z, Furtado S, Lu JQ, et al. (2004) Levodopa-induced changes in synaptic dopamine levels increase with progression of Parkinson's disease: Implications for dyskinesias. Brain 127: 2747–2754.
  84. 84. Evans AH, Pavese N, Lawrence AD, Tai YF, Appel S, et al. (2006) Compulsive drug use linked to sensitized ventral striatal dopamine transmission. Ann Neurology 59: 852–858.
  85. 85. Steeves TDL, Miyasaki J, Zurowski M, Lang AE, Pellechia G, et al. (2009) Increased striatal dopamine release in Parkinsonian patients with pathological gambling: A [11C]raclopride PET study. Brain 132: 1376–1385.
  86. 86. First MB, Spitzer RI, Gibbon M (1995) Axis I Disorders. New York: New York State Psychiatric Institute.
  87. 87. Dreher JC, Schmidt PJ, Kohn P, Furman D, Rubinow D, et al. (2007) Menstrual cycle phase modulates reward-related neural function in women. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 104: 2465–2470.
  88. 88. Evans SM, Haney M, Foltin RW (2002) The effects of smoked cocaine during the follicular and luteal phases of the menstrual cycle in women. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 159: 397–406.
  89. 89. Sofuoglu M, Dudish-Poulsen S, Nelson D, Pentel PR, Hatsukami DK (1999) Sex and menstrual cycle differences in the subjective effects from smoked cocaine in humans. Exp Clin Psychopharmacol 7: 274–283.
  90. 90. Cloninger CR (1987) A systematic method for clinical description and classification of personality variants. A proposal. Arch Gen Psychiatry 44: 573–588.
  91. 91. Woicik PA, Stewart SH, Pihl RO, Conrod PJ (2009) The Substance Use Risk Profile Scale: A scale measuring traits linked to reinforcement-specific substance use profiles. Addict Behav 34: 1042–1055.
  92. 92. Costa PT, McCrae RR (1992) The Revised NEO Personality Inventory (NEO-PI-R) Professional Manual. Odessa, Florida: Psycho-logical Assessment Resources.
  93. 93. Lorr M, McNair DM, Fisher SU (1982) Evidence for bipolar mood states. J Pers Assess 46: 432–436.
  94. 94. Lorr M, McNair DM (1988) Manual for the profile of mood states - bipolar form. San Diego, California: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.
  95. 95. Blin O, Durup M, Pailhous J, Serratrice G (1990) Akathisia, motility, and locomotion in healthy volunteers. Clin Neuropharmacol 13: 426–435.
  96. 96. Morcom AM, Bullmore ET, Huppert FA, Lennox B, Praseedom A, et al. (2010) Memory encoding and dopamine in the aging brain: A psychopharmacological neuroimaging study. Cereb Cortex 20: 743–757.
  97. 97. Micallef J, Rey M, Eusebio A, Audebert C, Rouby F, et al. (2009) Antiparkinsonian drug-induced sleepiness: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of L-dopa, bromocriptine and pramipexole in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 67: 333–340.
  98. 98. Franken IH, Nijs I, Pepplinkhuizen L (2008) Effects of dopaminergic modulation on electrophysiological brain response to affective stimuli. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 195: 537–546.
  99. 99. Cools R, Sheridan M, Jacobs E, D'Esposito M (2007) Impulsive personality predicts dopamine-dependent changes in frontostriatal activity during component processes of working memory. J Neurosci 27: 5506–5514.
  100. 100. Roesch-Ely D, Scheffel H, Weiland S, Schwaninger M, Hundemer HP, et al. (2005) Differential dopaminergic modulation of executive control in healthy subjects. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 178: 420–430.
  101. 101. Mehta MA, Swainson R, Ogilvie AD, Sahakian J, Robbins TW (2001) Improved short-term spatial memory but impaired reversal learning following the dopamine D(2) agonist bromocriptine in human volunteers. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 159: 10–20.
  102. 102. Abduljawad KA, Langley RW, Bradshaw CM, Szabadi E (1998) Effects of bromocriptine and haloperidol on prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle response in man. J Psychopharmacology 12: 239–245.
  103. 103. Muller U, von Cramon DY, Pollmann S (1998) D1- versus D2-receptor modulation of visuospatial working memory in humans. J Neurosci 18: 2720–2728.
  104. 104. Andreu N, Chale JJ, Senard JM, Thalamas C, Montastruc JL, et al. (1999) L-Dopa-induced sedation: a double-blind cross-over controlled study versus triazolam and placebo in healthy volunteers. Clin Neuropharmacol 22: 15–23.
  105. 105. van der Post J, de Waal PP, de Kam ML, Cohen AF, van Gerven JMA (2004) No evidence of the usefulness of eye blinking as a marker for central dopaminergic activity. J Psychopharmacology 18: 109–114.
  106. 106. Breitenstein C, Korsukewitz C, Floel A, Kretzschmar T, Diederich K, et al. (2006) Tonic dopaminergic stimulation impairs associative learning in healthy subjects. Neuropsychopharmacology 31: 2552–2564.
  107. 107. Upadhyaya HP, Brady KT, Liao J, Sethuraman G, Middaugh L, et al. (2003) Neuroendocrine and behavioral responses to dopaminergic agonists in adolescents with alcohol abuse. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 166: 95–101.
  108. 108. Hamidovic A, Kang UJ, de Wit H (2008) Effects of low to moderate acute doses of pramipexole on impulsivity and cognition in healthy volunteers. J Clin Psychopharmacol 28: 45–51.
  109. 109. Pizzagalli DA, Evins AE, Schetter EC, Frank MJ, Pajtas PE, et al. (2008) Single dose of a dopamine agonist impairs reinforcement learning in humans: Behavioral evidence from a laboratory-based measure of reward responsiveness. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 196: 221–232.
  110. 110. Roussos P, Giakoumaki SG, Bitsios P (2009) Tolcapone effects on gating, working memory, and mood interact with the synonymous catechol-O-methyltransferase rs4818c/g polymorphism. Biol Psychiatry 66: 997–1004.
  111. 111. Giakoumaki SG, Roussos P, Bitsios P (2008) Improvement of prepulse inhibition and executive function by the COMT inhibitor tolcapone depends on COMT Val158Met polymorphism. Neuropsychopharmacology 33: 3058–3068.
  112. 112. Apud JA, Mattay V, Chen J, Kolachana BS, Callicott JH, et al. (2007) Tolcapone improves cognition and cortical information processing in normal human subjects. Neuropsychopharmacology 32: 1011–1020.