I did notice it is an old article, however the citation is not correct and defending it makes me think you could still use some work in that area. The paragrap

I did notice it is an old article, however the citation is not correct and defending it makes me think you could still use some work in that area. The paragraph with the citation discusses the relative importance of dopamine to the frontal lobe vs. the rest of the brain. The article you cite does not address that, not even in a side comment as far as I can tell. Independent of the citation, I think it is misleading to call the whole frontal lobe (or even prefrontal cortex) a "hub" although reasonable to note the significance of dopamine there. The second sentence I consider factually incorrect considering the major role dopamine has in the striatum (also "processing dopamine" doesn't really describe what you are talking about). As tempting as it is, connecting brain structure and functioning to human experience is more likely to be misleading than accurate and particularly so the shorter the explanation is (no matter how well researched and explained). Making such claims in this type of article is misrepresenting scientific knowledge and I encourage you to avoid doing so (as popular as this is :( ).