Cited by 1,030Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesDecision-Making and Behavioral EconomicsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Matching Behavior and the Representation of Value in the Parietal Cortex

Sugrue, Leo P., Corrado, Greg S., Newsome, William T.·2004·Science

Abstract

Psychologists and economists have long appreciated the contribution of reward history and expectation to decision-making. Yet we know little about how specific histories of choice and reward lead to an internal representation of the “value” of possible actions. We approached this problem through an integrated application of behavioral, computational, and physiological techniques. Monkeys were placed in a dynamic foraging environment in which they had to track the changing values of alternative choices through time. In this context, the monkeys' foraging behavior provided a window into their subjective valuation. We found that a simple model based on reward history can duplicate this behavior and that neurons in the parietal cortex represent the relative value of competing actions predicted by this model.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1126/science.1094765

Cites

31 of 31 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • LIP neurons are hypothesized to encode the attentional salience or expected value of a visual saccade target, but these concepts cannot explain the pattern of LIP activity in the experiment.

    “LIP neurons are hypothesized to encode the attentional salience or expected value of a visual saccade target (52, 53, 63), but these concepts cannot explain the pattern of LIP activity in our experiment.”
  • Previous studies have shown that LIP responses are modulated by many factors, such as attention, expectation, time, motor intention, experienced value, reward, and the prior probability of making an eye movement.

    “In addition, previous studies have shown that LIP responses are modulated by many factors, such as attention, expectation, time, motor intention, experienced value, reward, and the prior probability of making an eye movement12,13,39–42.”
  • In a dynamic payoff task, monkeys apportioned choices in proportion to recent reward history, and lateral intraparietal area neurons increased selective responses in proportion with the target's expected reward.

    “Monkeys apportioned their choices in proportion to the recent history of rewards, and neurons in the lateral intraparietal area increased their selective responses in proportion with the target’s expected reward: firing for a saccade directed toward the receptive field increased monotonically (blue traces, dashed to solid), while firing for a saccade to a different location decreased monotonically”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Sugrue et al., 2004

  • Parietal neurons encoding target selection report an action value representation (the term V in Rescorla-Wagner) and update this representation dynamically.

    “As described above, parietal neurons encoding target selection are thought to report an action value representation – the term V in the Rescorla-Wagner equation – and to update this representation in dynamic fashion (Sugrue et al., 2004).”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Sugrue et al., 2004

  • Similar results are obtained when target desirability is manipulated by relative magnitude, probability, or delay of expected reward.

    “Similar results are obtained in tasks that manipulate the desirability of a target using different methods, for example by controlling the relative magnitude, probability or delay of its expected reward (Bernacchia et al., 2011; Louie et al., 2011; Sugrue et al., 2004; Yang and Shadlen, 2007).”

    From Attention, learning, and the value of information (2012) · cites this paper as Sugrue et al., 2004

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Sugrue, L. P., Corrado, G. S., & Newsome, W. T.
Affiliations
Howard Hughes Medical Institute (US)
Corresponding author
Sugrue, Leo P.
Venue
Science
Published
2004-06-18
Volume
304
Issue
5678
Pages
1782-1787
ISSN
  • 0036-8075 (ISSN-L)
  • 1095-9203
OpenAlex
W2019310225
Cited by
1,030
References
31
Citations by year
2026: 22 · 2025: 21 · 2024: 27 · 2023: 29 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 34 · 2020: 31 · 2019: 43 · 2018: 29 · 2017: 34 · 2016: 38 · 2015: 51 · 2014: 58 · 2013: 59 · 2012: 59
FWCI
29.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
value representation, parietal cortex, reward history, subjective value, foraging behavior, decision-making, reward anticipation
MeSH terms
Animals, Brain Mapping, Choice Behavior, Computer Simulation, Cues, Decision Making, Macaca mulatta, Male, Mathematics, Models, Psychological, Neurons, Parietal Lobe, Probability, Regression Analysis, Reward, Saccades

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