4.7 Article

Inhibitory and excitatory mechanisms in the human cingulate-cortex support reinforcement learning: A functional Proton Magnetic Resonance Spectroscopy study

期刊

NEUROIMAGE
卷 184, 期 -, 页码 25-35

出版社

ACADEMIC PRESS INC ELSEVIER SCIENCE
DOI: 10.1016/j.neuroimage.2018.09.016

关键词

Anterior cingulate cortex; fMRS; GABA; E/I-balance; Reinforcement learning

资金

  1. ISF [26613]
  2. Minerva Foundation
  3. Monroy-Marks Career Development Fund
  4. ERC-2016-CoG [724910]
  5. European Research Council (ERC) [724910] Funding Source: European Research Council (ERC)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (dACC) is crucial for motivation, reward- and error-guided decision-making, yet its excitatory and inhibitory mechanisms remain poorly explored in humans. In particular, the balance between excitation and inhibition (E/I), demonstrated to play a role in animal studies, is difficult to measure in behaving humans. Here, we used functional magnetic-resonance-spectroscopy (H-1-fMRS) to measure the brain's major inhibitory (GABA) and excitatory (Glutamate) neurotransmitters during reinforcement learning with three different conditions: high cognitive load (uncertainty); probabilistic discrimination learning; and a control null condition. Participants learned to prefer the gain option in the discrimination phase and had no preference in the other conditions. We found increased GABA levels during the uncertainty condition, potentially reflecting recruitment of inhibitory systems during high cognitive load when trying to learn. Further, higher GABA levels during the null (baseline) condition correlated with improved discrimination learning. Finally, glutamate and GABA levels were correlated during high cognitive load. These results suggest that availability of dACC inhibitory resources enables successful learning. Our approach helps elucidate the potential contribution of the balance between excitation and inhibition to learning and motivation in behaving humans.

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