Cited by 88Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Axiomatic methods, dopamine and reward prediction error

Caplin, Andrew, Dean, Mark·2008·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

The phasic firing rate of midbrain dopamine neurons has been shown to respond both to the receipt of rewarding stimuli, and the degree to which such stimuli are anticipated by the recipient. This has led to the hypothesis that these neurons encode reward prediction error (RPE)-the difference between how rewarding an event is, and how rewarding it was expected to be. However, the RPE model is one of a number of competing explanations for dopamine activity that have proved hard to disentangle, mainly because they are couched in terms of latent, or unobservable, variables. This article describes techniques for dealing with latent variables common in economics and decision theory, and reviews work that uses these techniques to provide simple, non-parametric tests of the RPE hypothesis, allowing clear differentiation between competing explanations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.conb.2008.07.007

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Sensitization and habituation in pain processing can make pain resemble prediction errors in certain ways.

    “We note that pain adaptation processes such as sensitization and habituation can cause pain itself to behave like PEs in some respects; for example, both pain and aversive PEs may decrease across trials and vary inversely with the intensity of prior pain50, causing a stronger partial overlap between aversive PE signals and pain itself.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Caplin, A., & Dean, M.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2008-04
Volume
18
Issue
2
Pages
197-202
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1982278044
Cited by
88
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 3 · 2023: 11 · 2022: 2 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 4 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 2
FWCI
0.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
dopaminergic neurons, reward prediction error, midbrain dopamine, latent variables, nonparametric tests, axiomatic decision theory, expected reward, competing hypotheses
MeSH terms
Algorithms, Decision Making, Dopamine, Humans, Mesencephalon, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Reinforcement Schedule, 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