Cited by 188Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural dynamics and brain function

Heterogeneous reward signals in prefrontal cortex

Open access
Wallis, Jonathan D, Kennerley, Steven W·2010·Current Opinion in Neurobiology

Abstract

Neurons encode upcoming rewards throughout frontal cortex. Recent papers have helped to determine that these signals play different roles in different frontal regions. Neurons in orbitofrontal cortex (PFo) appear to be responsible for calculating the specific value of an expected reward, information that can help efficiently guide decision-making. Similar signals are also present in the cingulate sulcus (PFcs). By contrast, reward signals in lateral prefrontal cortex (PFl) are consistent with a role in using reward to guide other cognitive processes, such as the allocation of attentional resources and using value information to guide learning other relationships in the environment such as arbitrary stimulus-response mappings. A remaining issue for future work is to specify the precise roles of PFo and PFcs. These two areas show very different patterns of connectivity with other brain areas, and it is currently unclear how this effects their contribution to decision-making.

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 · 10.1016/j.conb.2010.02.009

Cites

66 of 66 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?

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
Wallis, J. D., & Kennerley, S. W.
Affiliations
UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Venue
Current Opinion in Neurobiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2010-04
Volume
20
Issue
2
Pages
191-198
ISSN
0959-4388 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2029172539
Cited by
186
References
66
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 4 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 12 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 22 · 2012: 22
FWCI
1.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Current Opinion in Neurobiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Henan Institute of Science and Technology
  • National Institutes of Health (5f32mh081521-02)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (F32MH-081521)
  • National Institute on Drug Abuse (R01-DA19028, R01DA019028)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (P01NS040813)
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 › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
reward signals, prefrontal cortex, orbitofrontal cortex, cingulate sulcus, lateral prefrontal cortex, decision-making, attention allocation, stimulus-response learning, neuronal connectivity
MeSH terms
Animals, Attention, Cognition, Decision Making, Humans, Learning, Nerve Net, Neurons, Reward, Prefrontal Cortex, Executive Function

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