Reward value comparison via mutual inhibition in ventromedial prefrontal cortex
Open accessAbstract
Recent theories suggest that reward-based choice reflects competition between value signals in the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC). We tested this idea by recording vmPFC neurons while macaques performed a gambling task with asynchronous offer presentation. We found that neuronal activity shows four patterns consistent with selection via mutual inhibition: (1) correlated tuning for probability and reward size, suggesting that vmPFC carries an integrated value signal; (2) anti-correlated tuning curves for the two options, suggesting mutual inhibition; (3) neurons rapidly come to signal the value of the chosen offer, suggesting the circuit serves to produce a choice; and (4) after regressing out the effects of option values, firing rates still could predict choice-a choice probability signal. In addition, neurons signaled gamble outcomes, suggesting that vmPFC contributes to both monitoring and choice processes. These data suggest a possible mechanism for reward-based choice and endorse the centrality of vmPFC in that process.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
Single neurons in the macaque VMPFC signal the value of the chosen offer, suggesting that the network produces a choice.
“single neurons in the macaque ventromedial prefrontal cortex signal the value of the chosen offer, suggesting that the network produces a choice (Strait et al., 2014), also consistent with the attractor model of decision-making (Rolls et al., 2010a,b; Rolls, 2014, 2016b, 2021a).”
From The orbitofrontal cortex: reward, emotion and depression (2020) · cites this paper as Strait et al., 2014
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 84 · Cited by 294
- Authors
- Strait, C. E., Blanchard, T. C., & Hayden, B. Y.
- Affiliations
- University of Rochester (US)
- Corresponding author
- Strait, Caleb E.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-06
- Volume
- 82
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1357-1366
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4086796
- OpenAlex
- W2053576047
- Cited by
- 294
- References
- 84
- Citations by year
- 2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 33 · 2019: 38 · 2018: 24 · 2017: 24 · 2016: 26 · 2015: 28 · 2014: 7
- FWCI
- 15.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Brain and Behavior Research Foundation
- Alfred P. Sloan Foundation
- Brain Research Foundation
- National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression
- National Institute on Drug Abuse (R00DA027718, K99DA027718)
- 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 › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
- Keywords
- ventromedial prefrontal cortex, reciprocal inhibition, value signals, gambling task, choice probabilities, outcome monitoring, macaque, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Choice Behavior, Macaca mulatta, Male, Neural Inhibition, Photic Stimulation, Random Allocation, Reward, Prefrontal Cortex
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
