Cited by 236Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Believing in dopamine

Open access
Gershman, Samuel J., Uchida, Naoshige·2019·Nature Reviews Neuroscience

Abstract

Midbrain dopamine signals are widely thought to report reward prediction errors that drive learning in the basal ganglia. However, dopamine has also been implicated in various probabilistic computations, such as encoding uncertainty and controlling exploration. Here, we show how these different facets of dopamine signalling can be brought together under a common reinforcement learning framework. The key idea is that multiple sources of uncertainty impinge on reinforcement learning computations: uncertainty about the state of the environment, the parameters of the value function and the optimal action policy. Each of these sources plays a distinct role in the prefrontal cortex-basal ganglia circuit for reinforcement learning and is ultimately reflected in dopamine activity. The view that dopamine plays a central role in the encoding and updating of beliefs brings the classical prediction error theory into alignment with more recent theories of Bayesian reinforcement learning.

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/s41583-019-0220-7

Cites

118 of 118 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 brain may have dedicated machinery, perhaps in prefrontal cortex, for computing belief states, which could then be provided to downstream areas, such as the basal ganglia, to perform standard RL algorithms such as TD learning.

    “The brain may have dedicated machinery, perhaps in prefrontal cortex [12,13], for computing belief states, which could then be provided to downstream areas, such as the basal ganglia, to perform standard RL algorithms such as TD learning [14].”

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
Gershman, S. J., & Uchida, N.
Affiliations
Harvard University (US)
Corresponding author
Gershman, Samuel J.
Venue
Nature Reviews Neuroscience
Published
2019-09-30
Volume
20
Issue
11
Pages
703-714
ISSN
  • 1471-003X (ISSN-L)
  • 1471-0048
OpenAlex
W2976141814
Cited by
236
References
118
Citations by year
2026: 26 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 31 · 2022: 49 · 2021: 36 · 2020: 21 · 2019: 3
FWCI
3.62
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Nature reviews. Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01NS108740)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
dopamine, reward prediction error, Bayesian reinforcement learning, uncertainty encoding, belief updating, policy uncertainty, reinforcement learning
MeSH terms
Animals, Basal Ganglia, Dopamine, Humans, Learning, Nerve Net, 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