Cited by 574Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Coincident but Distinct Messages of Midbrain Dopamine and Striatal Tonically Active Neurons

Open access
Morris, Genela, Arkadir, David, Nevet, Alon, Vaadia, Eilon, Bergman, Hagai·2004·Neuron

Abstract

Midbrain dopamine and striatal tonically active neurons (TANs, presumed acetylcholine interneurons) signal behavioral significance of environmental events. Since striatal dopamine and acetylcholine affect plasticity of cortico-striatal transmission and are both crucial to learning, they may serve as teachers in the basal ganglia circuits. We recorded from both neuronal populations in monkeys performing a probabilistic instrumental conditioning task. Both neuronal types respond robustly to reward-related events. Although different events yielded responses with different latencies, the responses of the two populations coincided, indicating integration at the target level. Yet, while the dopamine neurons' response reflects mismatch between expectation and outcome in the positive domain, the TANs are invariant to reward predictability. Finally, TAN pairs are synchronized, compared to a minority of dopamine neuron pairs. We conclude that the striatal cholinergic and dopaminergic systems carry distinct messages by different means, which can be integrated differently to shape the basal ganglia responses to reward-related events.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2004.06.012

Cites

75 of 75 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

  • Dopamine responses in elaborate tasks constitute standard reward prediction-error signals.

    “However, on closer inspection, dopamine responses in such elaborate tasks constitute standard reward prediction-error signals2,33,59,66,69,75,151–153.”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Morris, G., Arkadir, D., Nevet, A., Vaadia, E., & Bergman, H.
Affiliations
Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
Corresponding author
Morris, Genela
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2004-07
Volume
43
Issue
1
Pages
133-143
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2154145851
Cited by
574
References
75
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 15 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 24 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 49 · 2019: 32 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 22 · 2016: 32 · 2015: 31 · 2014: 29 · 2013: 18 · 2012: 20
FWCI
9.83
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (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
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
midbrain dopamine, basal ganglia, reward prediction, neuronal synchronization, signal integration
MeSH terms
Acetylcholine, Action Potentials, Animals, Behavior, Animal, Dopamine, Female, Interneurons, Learning, Macaca mulatta, Male, Mesencephalon, Neural Pathways, Synaptic Transmission, Neuronal Plasticity, Reaction Time, Reward, Substantia Nigra, Neostriatum

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