Cited by 274Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural dynamics and brain function

The neural code of reward anticipation in human orbitofrontal cortex

Open access
Kahnt, Thorsten, Heinzle, Jakob, Park, Soyoung Q, Haynes, John-Dylan·2010·Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences

Abstract

An optimal choice among alternative behavioral options requires precise anticipatory representations of their possible outcomes. A fundamental question is how such anticipated outcomes are represented in the brain. Reward coding at the level of single cells in the orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) follows a more heterogeneous coding scheme than suggested by studies using functional MRI (fMRI) in humans. Using a combination of multivariate pattern classification and fMRI we show that the reward value of sensory cues can be decoded from distributed fMRI patterns in the OFC. This distributed representation is compatible with previous reports from animal electrophysiology that show that reward is encoded by different neural populations with opposing coding schemes. Importantly, the fMRI patterns representing specific values during anticipation are similar to those that emerge during the receipt of reward. Furthermore, we show that the degree of this coding similarity is related to subjects' ability to use value information to guide behavior. These findings narrow the gap between reward coding in humans and animals and corroborate the notion that value representations in OFC are independent of whether reward is anticipated or actually received.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1073/pnas.0912838107

Cites

54 of 54 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kahnt, T., Heinzle, J., Park, S. Q., & Haynes, J.-D.
Affiliations
  • Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin (DE)
  • Bernstein Center for Computational Neuroscience Berlin (DE)
  • Max Planck Society (DE)
Venue
Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Published
2010-03-15
Volume
107
Issue
13
Pages
6010-6015
ISSN
  • 0027-8424 (ISSN-L)
  • 1091-6490
OpenAlex
W1965347027
Cited by
274
References
54
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 11 · 2023: 9 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 60 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 16 · 2016: 17 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 16 · 2013: 19 · 2012: 16
FWCI
10.64
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Max Planck Digital Library (submittedVersion)
  • MPG.PuRe (Max Planck Society) (submittedVersion)
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 › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
reward anticipation, orbitofrontal cortex, distributed neural representation, sensory cues, single-cell electrophysiology
MeSH terms
Adult, Animals, Decision Making, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Magnetic Resonance Imaging, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Photic Stimulation, Psychophysiology, Reaction Time, Reward, Task Performance and Analysis, Young Adult

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