The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
But yes, there are two different cell types. And at least for your audience, we can think about dopamine driving the activity of one, promoting certain behaviors and inhibiting the activity of the other cell type, and being a sort of break on certain behaviors.
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
So, a very influential hypothesis, which has guided my thinking. And again, the trick, you have done a wonderful job of communicating complex scientific topics to your podcast audience, and I congratulate you on that, and it's a really important role. But as you know, it's always more complicated than we want it to be as scientists, especially when you're dealing with brain activity issues and how the brain mediates all its amazing functions. So, historically, we have thought about the nucleus accumbens and other components of this ventral striatal brain area as primarily being composed of two different cell types, and as you pointed out, one being sort of an accelerator, something that promotes certain behaviors, and the other cell type somewhat being a break saying, don't do that behavior, don't perform that motor action. And it is true that there are these different cell types. It is true that they are modulated by these modulators like dopamine and serotonin in different ways. And that simplistic hypothesis, or heuristic we call it, has been very useful in making models about how the accumbens does all its wonderful things.