Cited by 123Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Ventral–striatal/nucleus–accumbens sensitivity to prediction errors during classification learning

Open access
Rodriguez, P. F., Aron, A.R., Poldrack, R.A.·2006·Human Brain Mapping

Abstract

A prominent theory in neuroscience suggests reward learning is driven by the discrepancy between a subject's expectation of an outcome and the actual outcome itself. Furthermore, it is postulated that midbrain dopamine neurons relay this mismatch to target regions including the ventral striatum. Using functional MRI (fMRI), we tested striatal responses to prediction errors for probabilistic classification learning with purely cognitive feedback. We used a version of the Rescorla‐Wagner model to generate prediction errors for each subject and then entered these in a parametric analysis of fMRI activity. Activation in ventral striatum/nucleus‐accumbens (Nacc) increased parametrically with prediction error for negative feedback. This result extends recent neuroimaging findings in reward learning by showing that learning with cognitive feedback also depends on the same circuitry and dopaminergic signaling mechanisms. Hum Brain Mapp, 2005. © 2005 Wiley‐Liss, Inc.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/hbm.20186

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Learning signals in the striatum are present even when feedback is informative but not explicitly rewarding.

    “Interestingly, learning signals in the striatum are present even when feedback is informative but not explicitly rewarding (e.g. feedback that a choice was correct or incorrect) 26, 27.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rodriguez, P. F., Aron, A. R., & Poldrack, R. A.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Irvine (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
Venue
Human Brain Mapping
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2005-08-09
Volume
27
Issue
4
Pages
306-313
ISSN
  • 1065-9471 (ISSN-L)
  • 1097-0193
OpenAlex
W1997450499
Cited by
122
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 2 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 5 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 1 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 3
FWCI
4.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Human Brain Mapping (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
National Science Foundation (0223843)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
prediction error, ventral striatum, nucleus accumbens, reward learning, classification learning, cognitive feedback, Rescorla-Wagner model, dopaminergic signaling, negative feedback
MeSH terms
Basal Ganglia, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Dopamine, Feedback, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Nucleus Accumbens, Pattern Recognition, Visual, Photic Stimulation, Predictive Value of Tests, Reward

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review