4.7 Article

Temporal filtering of reward signals in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex during a mixed-strategy game

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 27, 期 31, 页码 8366-8377

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2369-07.2007

关键词

reinforcement learning; game theory; neuroeconomics; decision; dopamine; reward

资金

  1. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH073246, R01 MH073246-05, MH073246] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The process of decision making in humans and other animals is adaptive and can be tuned through experience so as to optimize the outcomes of their choices in a dynamic environment. Previous studies have demonstrated that the anterior cingulate cortex plays an important role in updating the animal's behavioral strategies when the action outcome contingencies change. Moreover, neurons in the anterior cingulate cortex often encode the signals related to expected or actual reward. We investigated whether reward-related activity in the anterior cingulate cortex is affected by the animal's previous reward history. This was tested in rhesus monkeys trained to make binary choices in a computer-simulated competitive zero-sum game. The animal's choice behavior was relatively close to the optimal strategy but also revealed small systematic biases that are consistent with the use of a reinforcement learning algorithm. In addition, the activity of neurons in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex that was related to the reward received by the animal in a given trial often was modulated by the rewards in the previous trials. Some of these neurons encoded the rate of rewards in previous trials, whereas others displayed activity modulations more closely related to the reward prediction errors. In contrast, signals related to the animal's choices were represented only weakly in this cortical area. These results suggest that neurons in the dorsal anterior cingulate cortex might be involved in the subjective evaluation of choice outcomes based on the animal's reward history.

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