Fine and Blair critique Depue and Collins's (D&C) article on the neurobiology of extraversion. They argue that D&C's claim that the medial orbitofrontal cortex (MOC13) is essential for instrumental conditioning is incorrect, as evidence shows that MOC13 lesions do not impair instrumental conditioning. Instead, they suggest that D&C's model could be enhanced by integrating it with Grossberg's computational theory, particularly Grossberg's adaptive resonance theory (ART), which explains instrumental and classical conditioning. Grossberg's model accounts for the dissociation between instrumental learning and relearning, as well as the "persistence problem," where multiple motivationally conflicting stimuli are processed simultaneously. D&C's model predicts an association between instrumental learning and relearning, whereas Grossberg's model predicts dissociation. Grossberg's model includes interactions between attentional and orienting subsystems, which are crucial for resolving conflicts between stimuli. D&C's model also fails to explain the persistence problem, such as the "turkey-love fiasco," where conflicting motivational responses are processed. Grossberg's model suggests that sensory cues can quickly direct attention through self-generated incentive feedback, preventing erroneous conditioning. D&C's model also does not fully explain individual differences in extraversion, as suggested by Gray. However, integrating Grossberg's and D&C's models could explain these differences at both cognitive and neuroanatomical levels. Additionally, Grossberg's model suggests that dopamine plays a key role in incentive motivation, with specific brain regions involved in the pathways described. Finally, the authors suggest that individual differences in sensitivity to stimuli, such as distress cues, could be explained by variations in drive representations. This integration of models could provide a more complete account of extraversion. The authors acknowledge support from the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.Fine and Blair critique Depue and Collins's (D&C) article on the neurobiology of extraversion. They argue that D&C's claim that the medial orbitofrontal cortex (MOC13) is essential for instrumental conditioning is incorrect, as evidence shows that MOC13 lesions do not impair instrumental conditioning. Instead, they suggest that D&C's model could be enhanced by integrating it with Grossberg's computational theory, particularly Grossberg's adaptive resonance theory (ART), which explains instrumental and classical conditioning. Grossberg's model accounts for the dissociation between instrumental learning and relearning, as well as the "persistence problem," where multiple motivationally conflicting stimuli are processed simultaneously. D&C's model predicts an association between instrumental learning and relearning, whereas Grossberg's model predicts dissociation. Grossberg's model includes interactions between attentional and orienting subsystems, which are crucial for resolving conflicts between stimuli. D&C's model also fails to explain the persistence problem, such as the "turkey-love fiasco," where conflicting motivational responses are processed. Grossberg's model suggests that sensory cues can quickly direct attention through self-generated incentive feedback, preventing erroneous conditioning. D&C's model also does not fully explain individual differences in extraversion, as suggested by Gray. However, integrating Grossberg's and D&C's models could explain these differences at both cognitive and neuroanatomical levels. Additionally, Grossberg's model suggests that dopamine plays a key role in incentive motivation, with specific brain regions involved in the pathways described. Finally, the authors suggest that individual differences in sensitivity to stimuli, such as distress cues, could be explained by variations in drive representations. This integration of models could provide a more complete account of extraversion. The authors acknowledge support from the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust.