Cited by 1,522Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Temporal difference models and reward-related learning in the human brain

Open access
O'Doherty, John P., Dayan, Peter, Friston, Karl, Critchley, Hugo, Dolan, Raymond J.·2003·Neuron

Abstract

Temporal difference learning has been proposed as a model for Pavlovian conditioning, in which an animal learns to predict delivery of reward following presentation of a conditioned stimulus (CS). A key component of this model is a prediction error signal, which, before learning, responds at the time of presentation of reward but, after learning, shifts its response to the time of onset of the CS. In order to test for regions manifesting this signal profile, subjects were scanned using event-related fMRI while undergoing appetitive conditioning with a pleasant taste reward. Regression analyses revealed that responses in ventral striatum and orbitofrontal cortex were significantly correlated with this error signal, suggesting that, during appetitive conditioning, computations described by temporal difference learning are expressed in the human 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/s0896-6273(03)00169-7

Cites

36 of 36 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 [17]

    The Introduction (page unavailable) describes prediction error as the difference between expected and actual outcomes and says learning updates expectations in proportion to that error. It also describes positive errors for unexpected rewards and negative errors for omitted rewards, supporting the claim about sign and cue-value learning. The paper studies Pavlovian conditioning, however, and the cited passages do not establish that this process guides future decisions. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Many early fMRI studies into prediction errors used model-free accounts in Pavlovian paradigms and located prediction errors in striatal BOLD.

    “Many early fMRI studies into prediction errors used model-free accounts in Pavlovian paradigms and located prediction errors in striatal BOLD (Berns et al., 2001; O’Doherty, 2004; O’Doherty et al., 2003; Haruno et al., 2004).”

    From Goals and Habits in the Brain (2013) · cites this paper as O’Doherty et al., 2003

  • Changes in striatum BOLD activity coincide with the process of learning how to predict rewards.

    “These changes in striatum BOLD activity coincide with the process of learning how to predict rewards 15, 16 – an observation supported by electrophysiological properties of its dopaminergic afferents.”
  • Human fMRI studies have found that VS activity correlates with reward prediction errors during tasks that feature exclusively Pavlovian reward associations.

    “human fMRI studies have found that VS activity correlates with RPEs during tasks that feature exclusively Pavlovian reward associations [27,28]”
  • Pupillary response dynamics are thought to reflect multiple different features, including sensory cues, arousal/task engagement, motor activity, and motivation.

    “Pupillary response dynamics are thought to reflect multiple different features, including sensory cues36,37, arousal/task engagement38,39, motor activity40,41, and motivation42,43.”

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
O'Doherty, J. P., Dayan, P., Friston, K., Critchley, H., & Dolan, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Gatsby Computational Neuroscience Unit (GB)
  • UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Venue
Neuron
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2003-04
Volume
38
Issue
2
Pages
329-337
ISSN
0896-6273 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2007414406
Cited by
1,522
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 51 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 51 · 2023: 46 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 55 · 2020: 54 · 2019: 64 · 2018: 87 · 2017: 65 · 2016: 97 · 2015: 71 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 93 · 2012: 97
FWCI
17.96
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Neuron (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Gatsby Charitable Foundation
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
temporal difference learning, prediction error signal, classical conditioning, appetitive conditioning, reward prediction, ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex, conditioned stimulus, human brain
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Brain Mapping, Conditioning, Classical, Corpus Striatum, Female, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Learning, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Male, Reference Values, Reflex, Pupillary, Reward, Taste, Time Perception

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