4.5 Review

Surprise! Neural correlates of Pearce-Hall and Rescorla-Wagner coexist within the brain

Journal

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
Volume 35, Issue 7, Pages 1190-1200

Publisher

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1460-9568.2011.07986.x

Keywords

amygdala; attention; dopamine; learning; prediction error

Categories

Funding

  1. NIDA
  2. NIMH
  3. NIA

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Learning theory and computational accounts suggest that learning depends on errors in outcome prediction as well as changes in processing of or attention to events. These divergent ideas are captured by models, such as RescorlaWagner (RW) and temporal difference (TD) learning on the one hand, which emphasize errors as directly driving changes in associative strength, vs. models such as PearceHall (PH) and more recent variants on the other hand, which propose that errors promote changes in associative strength by modulating attention and processing of events. Numerous studies have shown that phasic firing of midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons carries a signed error signal consistent with RW or TD learning theories, and recently we have shown that this signal can be dissociated from attentional correlates in the basolateral amygdala and anterior cingulate. Here we will review these data along with new evidence: (i) implicating habenula and striatal regions in supporting error signaling in midbrain DA neurons; and (ii) suggesting that the central nucleus of the amygdala and prefrontal regions process the amygdalar attentional signal. However, while the neural instantiations of the RW and PH signals are dissociable and complementary, they may be linked. Any linkage would have implications for understanding why one signal dominates learning in some situations and not others, and also for appreciating the potential impact on learning of neuropathological conditions involving altered DA or amygdalar function, such as schizophrenia, addiction or anxiety disorders.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available