4.7 Review

Functional specialization of the primate frontal cortex during decision making

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 27, 期 31, 页码 8170-8173

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.1561-07.2007

关键词

reinforcement learning; reward; cingulate cortex; prefrontal cortex; orbitofrontal cortex; neuroeconomics

资金

  1. Medical Research Council [G0600994] Funding Source: Medline
  2. NIMH NIH HHS [R01 MH073246, R01 MH073246-05] Funding Source: Medline
  3. NINDS NIH HHS [P01 NS048328, P01 NS048328-040003] Funding Source: Medline
  4. MRC [G0600994] Funding Source: UKRI
  5. Medical Research Council [G0600994] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Economic theories of decision making are based on the principle of utility maximization, and reinforcement-learning theory provides computational algorithms that can be used to estimate the overall reward expected from alternative choices. These formal models not only account for a large range of behavioral observations in human and animal decision makers, but also provide useful tools for investigating the neural basis of decision making. Nevertheless, in reality, decision makers must combine different types of information about the costs and benefits associated with each available option, such as the quality and quantity of expected reward and required work. In this article, we put forward the hypothesis that different subdivisions of the primate frontal cortex may be specialized to focus on different aspects of dynamic decision-making processes. In this hypothesis, the lateral prefrontal cortex is primarily involved in maintaining the state representation necessary to identify optimal actions in a given environment. In contrast, the orbitofrontal cortex and the anterior cingulate cortex might be primarily involved in encoding and updating the utilities associated with different sensory stimuli and alternative actions, respectively. These cortical areas are also likely to contribute to decision making in a social context.

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