4.8 Article

Choice-relevant information transformation along a ventrodorsal axis in the medial prefrontal cortex

期刊

NATURE COMMUNICATIONS
卷 12, 期 1, 页码 -

出版社

NATURE PORTFOLIO
DOI: 10.1038/s41467-021-25219-w

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Institute on Health [R01 DA038106, R01 MH118257]
  2. National Institute on Drug Abuse grant [P30 DA048742-01A1]
  3. National Institute for Biomedical Imaging Grant [P41 EB027061]
  4. UMN AIRP award

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study found that neurons in different regions of the prefrontal cortex exhibit similar features and encoding methods in choice-relevant computations, suggesting that these computations may be organized along a functional gradient. In addition, the research also explored the differences in task variable decodability and intrinsic timescales in these regions.
Choice-relevant brain regions in prefrontal cortex may progressively transform information about options into choices. Here, we examine responses of neurons in four regions of the medial prefrontal cortex as macaques performed two-option risky choices. All four regions encode economic variables in similar proportions and show similar putative signatures of key choice-related computations. We provide evidence to support a gradient of function that proceeds from areas 14 to 25 to 32 to 24. Specifically, we show that decodability of twelve distinct task variables increases along that path, consistent with the idea that regions that are higher in the anatomical hierarchy make choice-relevant variables more separable. We also show progressively longer intrinsic timescales in the same series. Together these results highlight the importance of the medial wall in choice, endorse a specific gradient-based organization, and argue against a modular functional neuroanatomy of choice. Choice-relevant computations across the medial prefrontal cortex differ only quantitatively between areas. Here the authors suggest these computations may be organized along a functional gradient.

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

4.8
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