Cited by 225Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

Distributed and Mixed Information in Monosynaptic Inputs to Dopamine Neurons

Open access
Tian, Ju, Huang, Ryan, Cohen, Jeremiah Y., Osakada, Fumitaka, Kobak, Dmitry, Machens, Christian K., Callaway, Edward M., Uchida, Naoshige +1 more·2016·Neuron

Abstract

Dopamine neurons encode the difference between actual and predicted reward, or reward prediction error (RPE). Although many models have been proposed to account for this computation, it has been difficult to test these models experimentally. Here we established an awake electrophysiological recording system, combined with rabies virus and optogenetic cell-type identification, to characterize the firing patterns of monosynaptic inputs to dopamine neurons while mice performed classical conditioning tasks. We found that each variable required to compute RPE, including actual and predicted reward, was distributed in input neurons in multiple brain areas. Further, many input neurons across brain areas signaled combinations of these variables. These results demonstrate that even simple arithmetic computations such as RPE are not localized in specific brain areas but, rather, distributed across multiple nodes in a brain-wide network. Our systematic method to examine both activity and connectivity revealed unexpected redundancy for a simple computation in the brain.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.neuron.2016.08.018

Cites

91 of 91 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • The signed prediction error indicates whether an outcome is better or worse than expected and plays a crucial role in changing the value allocated to cues, thereby guiding future decisions.

    “First, the signed prediction error indicates whether an outcome is better or worse than expected, and thereby plays a crucial role in changing the value allocated to cues, thereby guiding future decisions [14–21].”

    From Precision weighting of cortical unsigned prediction error signals benefits learning, is mediated by dopamine, and is impaired in psychosis (2021) · cites this paper as [21]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) defines reward prediction error as actual reward minus expected reward, supporting the claim that its sign indicates whether an outcome is better or worse than expected. The Results discuss reward-predictive cues, but the passages do not say that this error changes the value assigned to cues or thereby guides future decisions. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tian, J., Huang, R., Cohen, J. Y., Osakada, F., Kobak, D., Machens, C. K., Callaway, E. M., Uchida, N., & Watabe-Uchida, M.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Salk Institute for Biological Studies (US)
  • Centro Champalimaud (PT)
Corresponding author
Uchida, Naoshige
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2016-09
Volume
91
Issue
6
Pages
1374-1389
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2518664057
Cited by
224
References
91
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 22 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 26 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 17 · 2020: 35 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 14 · 2016: 6
FWCI
14.63
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • Dr. Mortier and Theresa Sackler Foundation
  • National Institute of Mental Health (R01MH095953, R01MH101207)
  • NIH (MH063912)
  • Japan Society for the Promotion of Science
  • Japan Science and Technology Agency
  • Bial Foundation (389/14)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
dopaminergic neurons, reward prediction error, monosynaptic input, distributed computing, mixed signals, classical conditioning, rabies virus tracing, neural redundancy, reward encoding
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain Mapping, Conditioning, Classical, Corpus Striatum, Male, Neural Pathways, Reward, Synapses, Mice, Dopaminergic Neurons

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