Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 85

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 8 of the 8 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Dopamine transients do not act as model-free prediction errors during associative learning

Sharpe, Melissa J., Batchelor, Hannah M., Mueller, Lauren E., Yun Chang, Chun, Maes, Etienne J. P., Niv, Yael, Schoenbaum, Geoffrey·2020·Nature Communications
DOI 10.1038/s41467-019-13953-1

Published version of a preprint

Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Dopamine neurons are proposed to signal the reward prediction error in model-free reinforcement learning algorithms. This term represents the unpredicted or ‘excess’ value of the rewarding event, value that is then added to the intrinsic value of any antecedent cues, contexts or events. To support this proposal, proponents cite evidence that artificially-induced dopamine transients cause lasting changes in behavior. Yet these studies do not generally assess learning under conditions where an endogenous prediction error would occur. Here, to address this, we conducted three experiments where we optogenetically activated dopamine neurons while rats were learning associative relationships, both with and without reward. In each experiment, the antecedent cues failed to acquire value and instead entered into associations with the later events, whether valueless cues or valued rewards. These results show that in learning situations appropriate for the appearance of a prediction error, dopamine transients support associative, rather than model-free, learning.

Overview

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 · 10.1038/s41467-019-13953-1

Cites

8 of 8 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

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

Self-check

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

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

Citations

Cites

Show all 8 references

Research works printed but not linked: 28

  1. Schultz, W., Dayan, P. & Montague, P. R. A neural substrate for prediction and reward. Science 275, 1593–1599 (1997). · DOI · Paper page
  2. Sutton, R. S. & Barto, A. G. Reinforcement learning: An introduction. (MIT press, Cambridge, 1998).. · DOI · Paper page
  3. Schultz, W. Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: a two-component response. Nat. Rev. Neurosci. 17, 183–195 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  4. Sharpe, M. J. et al. Dopamine transients are sufficient and necessary for acquisition of model-based associations. Nat. Neurosci. 20, 735–742 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  5. Keiflin, R., Pribut, H. J., Shah, N. B. & Janak, P. H. Ventral tegmental dopamine neurons participate in reward identity predictions. Curr. Biol. 29, 93–103 (2019). · DOI
  6. Adamantidis, A. R. et al. Optogenetic interrogation of dopaminergic modulation of the multiple phases of reward-seeking behavior. J. Neurosci. 31, 10829–10835 (2011). · DOI · Paper page
  7. Popescu, A. T., Zhou, M. R. & Poo, M.-M. Phasic dopamine release in the medial prefrontal cortex enhances stimulus discrimination. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 113, E3169–E3176 (2016). · DOI
  8. Chang, C. Y., Gardner, M., Di Tillio, M. G. & Schoenbaum, G. Optogenetic blockade of dopamine transients prevents learning induced by changes in reward features. Curr. Biol. 27, 3480–3486.e3483 (2017). · DOI
  9. Chang, C. Y. et al. Brief optogenetic inhibition of dopamine neurons mimics endogenous negative reward prediction errors. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 111–116 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  10. Hamid, A. A. et al. Mesolimbic dopamine signals the value of work. Nat. Neurosci. 19, 117–126 (2016). · DOI · Paper page
  11. Cardinal, R. N., Parkinson, J. A., Hall, G. & Everitt, B. J. Emotion and motivation: the role of the amygdala, ventral striatum, and prefrontal cortex. Neurosci. Biobehav. Rev. 26, 321–352 (2002). · DOI · Paper page
  12. Parkinson, J., Roberts, A., Everitt, B. & Di Ciano, P. Acquisition of instrumental conditioned reinforcement is resistant to the devaluation of the unconditioned stimulus. Q. J. Exp. Psychol. Sect. B 58, 19–30 (2005). · DOI
  13. Burke, K. A., Franz, T. M., Miller, D. N. & Schoenbaum, G. The role of the orbitofrontal cortex in the pursuit of happiness and more specific rewards. Nature 454, 340–344 (2008). · DOI · Paper page
  14. Sharpe, M. J., Batchelor, H. M. & Schoenbaum, G. Preconditioned cues have no value. elife 6, e28362 (2017). · DOI
  15. Brogden, W. J. Sensory pre-conditioning. J. Exp. Psychol. 25, 323–332 (1939). · DOI · Paper page
  16. Holland, P. C. & Ross, R. T. Savings test for associations between neutral stimuli. Anim. Learn. Behav. 11, 83–90 (1983). · doi:10.3758/bf03212312
  17. Holland, P. C. Second-order conditioning with and without unconditioned stimulus presentation. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 6, 238–250 (1980). · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.6.3.238
  18. Forbes, D. T. & Holland, P. C. Spontaneous configuring in conditioned flavor aversion. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 11, 224–240 (1985). · doi:10.1037/0097-7403.11.2.224
  19. Hoffeld, D. R., Kendall, S. B., Thompson, R. F. & Brogden, W. Effect of amount of preconditioning training upon the magnitude of sensory preconditioning. J. Exp. Psychol. 59, 198–204 (1960). · doi:10.1037/h0048857
  20. Sadacca, B. F., Jones, J. L. & Schoenbaum, G. Midbrain dopamine neurons compute inferred and cached value prediction errors in a common framework. elife 5, e13665 (2016). · DOI
  21. Jones, J. L. et al. Orbitofrontal cortex supports behavior and learning using inferred but not cached values. Science 338, 953–956 (2012). · DOI · Paper page
  22. Le Pelley, M. E., Beesley, T. & Griffiths, O. Overt attention and predictiveness in human contingency learning. J. Exp. Psychol. Anim. Behav. Process. 37, 220–229 (2011). · DOI
  23. Saunders, B., Richard, J., Margolis, E. & Janak, P. Dopamine neurons create Pavlovian conditioned stimuli with circuit-defined motivational properties. Nat. Neurosci. 21, 1072–1083 (2017). · DOI · Paper page
  24. Wang, D. V. et al. Disrupting glutamate co-transmission does not affect acquisition of conditioned behavior reinforced by dopamine neuron activation. Cell Rep. 18, 2584–2591 (2017). · DOI
  25. Arvanitogiannis, A. & Shizgal, P. The reinforcement mountain: allocation of behavior as a function of the rate and intensity of rewarding brain stimulation. Behav. Neurosci. 122, 1126–1138 (2008). · DOI
  26. Cheer, J. F. et al. Coordinated accumbal dopamine release and neural activity drive goal-directed behavior. Neuron 54, 237–244 (2007). · DOI · Paper page
  27. Scardochio, T., Trujillo-Pisanty, I., Conover, K., Shizgal, P. & Clarke, P. B. The effects of electrical and optical stimulation of midbrain dopaminergic neurons on rat 50-kHz ultrasonic vocalizations. Front. Behav. Neurosci. 9, 331 (2015). · DOI
  28. Corlett, P. R. et al. Disrupted prediction-error signal in psychosis: evidence for an associative account of delusions. Brain 130, 2387–2400 (2007). · DOI · Paper page

Cited by

See all 85

Metadata

Authors
Sharpe, M. J., Batchelor, H. M., Mueller, L. E., Yun Chang, C., Maes, E. J. P., Niv, Y., & Schoenbaum, G.
Venue
Nature Communications
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2020-01-08
Volume
11
Issue
1
ISSN
2041-1723
DOI
10.1038/s41467-019-13953-1
Cited by
85
References
8
Language
en
Licence
Funders
U.S. Department of Health & Human Services | NIH | National Institute on Drug Abuse (ZIA-DA000587)

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

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Dopamine transients do not act as model-free prediction errors during associative learning. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1038/s41467-019-13953-1
The paper
Sharpe, M. J., Batchelor, H. M., Mueller, L. E., Yun Chang, C., Maes, E. J. P., Niv, Y., & Schoenbaum, G. (2020). Dopamine transients do not act as model-free prediction errors during associative learning. Nature Communications. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-019-13953-1

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.