Overriding Phasic Dopamine Signals Redirects Action Selection during Risk/Reward Decision Making
Open accessAbstract
Phasic increases and decreases in dopamine (DA) transmission encode reward prediction errors thought to facilitate reward-related learning, yet how these signals guide action selection in more complex situations requiring evaluation of different reward remains unclear. We manipulated phasic DA signals while rats performed a risk/reward decision-making task, using temporally discrete stimulation of either the lateral habenula (LHb) or rostromedial tegmental nucleus (RMTg) to suppress DA bursts (confirmed with neurophysiological studies) or the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to override phasic dips. When rats chose between small/certain and larger/risky rewards, LHb or RMTg stimulation, time-locked to delivery of one of these rewards, redirected bias toward the alternative option, whereas VTA stimulation after non rewarded choices increased risky choice. LHb stimulation prior to choices shifted bias away from more preferred options. Thus, phasic DA signals provide feedback on whether recent actions were rewarded to update decision policies and direct actions toward more desirable reward.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Habenula stimulation elicits inhibitory electrophysiological dopamine responses through an intermediate reticular nucleus, rather than the excitatory responses required for a postulated aversive dopamine influence on place preferences.
“In support of the latter result, habenula stimulation elicits inhibitory electrophysiological dopamine responses139–141 through an intermediate reticular nucleus138, rather than the excitatory responses required for a postulated aversive dopamine influence on place preferences137.”
From Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: A two-component response (2016) · cites this paper as [138]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 63 · Cited by 136
- Authors
- Stopper, C. M., Tse, M. T. L., Montes, D. R., Wiedman, C. R., & Floresco, S. B.
- Affiliations
- University of British Columbia (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Floresco, Stan B.
- ORCID
- Floresco, Stan B.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2014-10
- Volume
- 84
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 177-189
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2078731619
- Cited by
- 136
- References
- 63
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 9 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 15 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 13 · 2014: 4
- FWCI
- 7.92
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (MOP89861)
- 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
- action selection, lateral habenula, rostromedial tegmental nucleus, ventral tegmental area, reward prediction error
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Choice Behavior, Decision Making, Dopamine, Male, Reward, Risk-Taking, Time Factors, Signal Transduction, Rats, Long-Evans, Rats
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