4.7 Article

Ventral striatal prediction error signaling is associated with dopamine synthesis capacity and fluid intelligence

期刊

HUMAN BRAIN MAPPING
卷 34, 期 6, 页码 1490-1499

出版社

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1002/hbm.22000

关键词

prediction error; dopamine synthesis; fluid intelligence; ventral striatum; fMRI; FDOPA PET

资金

  1. German Science Foundation [DFG HE2597/4-3 7-3DFG Exc 257, SCHL 1969/1-1, SCHL 1969/2-1, RA 1047/21]
  2. German Ministry for Education and Research [BMBF 01QG87164, 01GS08159]
  3. Max Planck Society for the Advancement of Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Fluid intelligence represents the capacity for flexible problem solving and rapid behavioral adaptation. Rewards drive flexible behavioral adaptation, in part via a teaching signal expressed as reward prediction errors in the ventral striatum, which has been associated with phasic dopamine release in animal studies. We examined a sample of 28 healthy male adults using multimodal imaging and biological parametric mapping with (1) functional magnetic resonance imaging during a reversal learning task and (2) in a subsample of 17 subjects also with positron emission tomography using 6-[18F]fluoro-L-DOPA to assess dopamine synthesis capacity. Fluid intelligence was measured using a battery of nine standard neuropsychological tests. Ventral striatal BOLD correlates of reward prediction errors were positively correlated with fluid intelligence and, in the right ventral striatum, also inversely correlated with dopamine synthesis capacity (FDOPA Kinapp). When exploring aspects of fluid intelligence, we observed that prediction error signaling correlates with complex attention and reasoning. These findings indicate that individual differences in the capacity for flexible problem solving relate to ventral striatal activation during reward-related learning, which in turn proved to be inversely associated with ventral striatal dopamine synthesis capacity. Hum Brain Mapp, 2013. (c) 2012 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据