Cited by 136Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Overriding Phasic Dopamine Signals Redirects Action Selection during Risk/Reward Decision Making

Open access
Stopper, Colin M., Tse, Maric T.L., Montes, David R., Wiedman, Candice R., Floresco, Stan B.·2014·Neuron

Abstract

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

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2014.08.033

Cites

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?

  • 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.”

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.
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
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