Abstract context representations in primate amygdala and prefrontal cortex
Open accessAbstract
Neurons in prefrontal cortex (PFC) encode rules, goals, and other abstract information thought to underlie cognitive, emotional, and behavioral flexibility. Here we show that the amygdala, a brain area traditionally thought to mediate emotions, also encodes abstract information that could underlie this flexibility. Monkeys performed a task in which stimulus-reinforcement contingencies varied between two sets of associations, each defining a context. Reinforcement prediction required identifying a stimulus and knowing the current context. Behavioral evidence indicated that monkeys utilized this information to perform inference and adjust their behavior. Neural representations in both amygdala and PFC reflected the linked sets of associations implicitly defining each context, a process requiring a level of abstraction characteristic of cognitive operations. Surprisingly, when errors were made, the context signal weakened substantially in the amygdala. These data emphasize the importance of maintaining abstract cognitive information in the amygdala to support flexible behavior.
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?
Cholinergic signaling in the monkey amygdala may also play a role in this switch.
“Cholinergic signaling in the monkey amygdala may also play a role in this switch [59].”
From Linking ADHD to the Neural Circuitry of Attention (2017) · cites this paper as [59]
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 87 · Cited by 183
- Authors
- Saez, A., Rigotti, M., Ostojic, S., Fusi, S., & Salzman, C. D.
- Affiliations
- Columbia University (US)
- IBM Research - Thomas J. Watson Research Center (US)
- Inserm (FR)
- New York State Psychiatric Institute (US)
- Corresponding author
- Salzman, C.D.
- Venue
- Neuron
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2015-08
- Volume
- 87
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 869-881
- ISSN
- 0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC4574873
- OpenAlex
- W1629577552
- Cited by
- 183
- References
- 87
- Citations by year
- 2026: 14 · 2025: 19 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 14 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 21 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 22 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 9 · 2015: 3
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Neuron (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
- PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
- Funders
- Agence Nationale de la Recherche (ANR-10-LABX-0087)
- National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH082017)
- National Eye Institute (P30EY019007)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
- Keywords
- amygdala, prefrontal cortex, cognitive flexibility, monkeys
- MeSH terms
- Amygdala, Animals, Brain Mapping, Female, Macaca mulatta, Male, Primates, Reinforcement, Psychology, Thinking, Prefrontal Cortex, Anticipation, Psychological
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