CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 170Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Specialized Representations of Value in the Orbital and Ventrolateral Prefrontal Cortex: Desirability versus Availability of Outcomes

Open access
Rudebeck, Peter H., Saunders, Richard C., Lundgren, Dawn A., Murray, Elisabeth A.·2017·Neuron
DOI 10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.042PMC PMC5600902
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Advantageous foraging choices benefit from an estimation of two aspects of a resource's value: its current desirability and availability. Both orbitofrontal and ventrolateral prefrontal areas contribute to updating these valuations, but their precise roles remain unclear. To explore their specializations, we trained macaque monkeys on two tasks: one required updating representations of a predicted outcome's desirability, as adjusted by selective satiation, and the other required updating representations of an outcome's availability, as indexed by its probability. We evaluated performance on both tasks in three groups of monkeys: unoperated controls and those with selective, fiber-sparing lesions of either the OFC or VLPFC. Representations that depend on the VLPFC but not the OFC play a necessary role in choices based on outcome availability; in contrast, representations that depend on the OFC but not the VLPFC play a necessary role in choices based on outcome desirability.

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.2017.07.042

Cites

70 of 70 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?

  • Object reversal task depends on more ventral PFC circuits.

    “a task that Elizabeth Murray’s lab at NIMH has shown depends on more ventral PFC circuits”

    From Guanfacine’s mechanism of action in treating prefrontal cortical disorders: Successful translation across species (2020) · cites this paper as Rudebeck, Saunders, Lundgren, & Murray, 2017

    The Discussion (VLPFC) reports that monkeys with VLPFC lesions were not impaired even when object–outcome associations were reversed. It concludes that neither OFC nor VLPFC is required for object discrimination reversal learning in macaques, contrary to the claim that the task depends on these ventral PFC areas. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Area 47/12o has been linked to the process of assigning the credit for a specific outcome to a specific choice.

    “It has been linked to the process of assigning the credit for a specific outcome to a specific choice.27”

    From Two prefrontal-subcortical circuits estimate controllability and reflect its impact on learning (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion (VLPFC; page unavailable) links VLPFC to associating a particular choice with its outcome, describing this as credit assignment. It says area 12o was included in the VLPFC lesions, but the authors do not know which part of those lesions caused the impairment. The finding therefore does not isolate credit assignment to area 47/12o. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Existing lines of evidence emphasize the causal importance of area 47/12o for credit assignment.

    “Some existing lines of evidence emphasize the causal importance of area 47/12o for credit assignment,35”

    From Two prefrontal-subcortical circuits estimate controllability and reflect its impact on learning (2026) · cites this paper as [35]

    The Discussion (VLPFC; page unavailable) links VLPFC lesion-related impairment to credit assignment and says the lesions included area 12o. It explicitly says the authors do not know which part of the VLPFC lesions caused the impairment, so the causal importance of area 47/12o specifically is not established. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • Lesions of the macaque medial OFC areas 13 and 11 make the animals less sensitive to reward value, as tested in devaluation experiments in which the animal is fed to satiety.

    “lesions of the macaque medial OFC areas 13 and 11 make the animals less sensitive to reward value, as tested in devaluation experiments in which the animal is fed to satiety (Rudebeck et al., 2017).”

    From The orbitofrontal cortex: reward, emotion and depression (2020) · cites this paper as Rudebeck et al., 2017

  • Damage to the lateral OFC (mainly area 12, extending around the inferior convexity, described as VLPFC) impairs the ability to make choices based on whether reward versus non-reward had been received.

    “In a more recent study, damage to the lateral OFC (mainly area 12 as shown in Fig. 1, and extending around the inferior convexity, but described as VLPFC—ventrolateral prefrontal cortex) was found to impair the ability to make choices based on whether reward versus non-reward had been received (Rudebeck et al., 2017; Murray and Rudebeck, 2018)”

    From The orbitofrontal cortex: reward, emotion and depression (2020) · cites this paper as Rudebeck et al., 2017

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

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. Thorndike E 1933 A proof of the law of effect Science 77 173 175 17819705

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Rudebeck, P. H., Saunders, R. C., Lundgren, D. A., & Murray, E. A.
Affiliations
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Corresponding author
  • Rudebeck, Peter H.
  • Murray, Elisabeth A.
ORCID
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-08
Volume
95
Issue
5
Pages
1208-1220.e5
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.neuron.2017.07.042
PMC
PMC5600902
OpenAlex
W2750722402
Cited by
170
References
70
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 19 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 1 · 2014: 1
FWCI
10.35
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (ZIAMH002887, R01 MH110822)
  • Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai
  • National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (23638)
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
orbitofrontal cortex, ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, value representation, outcome probability, foraging decisions, macaque
MeSH terms
Animals, Choice Behavior, Conditioning, Operant, Discrimination, Psychological, Discrimination Learning, Female, Ibotenic Acid, Macaca mulatta, Male, Reversal Learning, 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