Cited by 233Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorAnxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes

Reinforcement learning in depression: a review of computational research

Chen, Chong, Takahashi, Taiki, Nakagawa, Shin, Inoue, Takeshi, Kusumi, Ichiro·2015·Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews

Abstract

Despite being considered primarily a mood disorder, major depressive disorder (MDD) is characterized by cognitive and decision making deficits. Recent research has employed computational models of reinforcement learning (RL) to address these deficits. The computational approach has the advantage in making explicit predictions about learning and behavior, specifying the process parameters of RL, differentiating between model-free and model-based RL, and the computational model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging and electroencephalography. With these merits there has been an emerging field of computational psychiatry and here we review specific studies that focused on MDD. Considerable evidence suggests that MDD is associated with impaired brain signals of reward prediction error and expected value ('wanting'), decreased reward sensitivity ('liking') and/or learning (be it model-free or model-based), etc., although the causality remains unclear. These parameters may serve as valuable intermediate phenotypes of MDD, linking general clinical symptoms to underlying molecular dysfunctions. We believe future computational research at clinical, systems, and cellular/molecular/genetic levels will propel us toward a better understanding of the disease.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neubiorev.2015.05.005

Cites

362 of 362 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

3 of the 365 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chen, C., Takahashi, T., Nakagawa, S., Inoue, T., & Kusumi, I.
Affiliations
Hokkaido University (JP)
Corresponding author
Chen, Chong
Venue
Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2015-08
Volume
55
Pages
247-267
ISSN
0149-7634 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W291512641
Cited by
233
References
365
Citations by year
2026: 17 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 34 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 17 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 4
FWCI
1.29
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Anxiety, Depression, Psychometrics, Treatment, Cognitive Processes
Keywords
major depressive disorder, reinforcement learning, computational psychiatry, model-free reinforcement learning, model-based reinforcement learning, reward prediction error, reward sensitivity, endophenotypes, decision-making deficits, cognitive deficits in depression
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain, Computer Simulation, Major Depressive Disorder, Humans, Motivation, Reinforcement, Psychology

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