The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Responses of midbrain dopamine neurons to behavioral trigger stimuli in the monkey
Abstract
Destruction of the midbrain dopamine (DA) system in Parkinsonian man and experimental animals leads to deficits in initiation of behavior, motor performance, and cognitive mechanisms. We have investigated the extracellular impulse activity of single midbrain DA neurons in unlesioned monkeys performing in a controlled behavioral task that was designed to paradigmatically test behavioral reactivity. Animals were trained to execute natural forelimb reaching movements for food reward in response to a trigger stimulus. Presumptive DA neurons were histologically located in the pars compacta of substantia nigra and in neighboring areas A8 and A10. They spontaneously discharged polyphasic impulses of relatively long duration (1.4-3.6 ms) and at low frequencies (0.5-8.5/s). Systemic injections of low doses of the DA autoreceptor agonist apomorphine (0.05-0.2 mg/kg) depressed the activity of virtually all thus tested DA neurons. In following established criteria, these characteristics strongly suggest the DAergic nature of the recorded neurons. The majority of midbrain DA neurons (70 of 128) responded to the behavioral trigger stimulus of the task with a short burst of impulses. Latencies ranged from 39 to 105 ms (median 65 ms) for onset and from 65 to 165 ms (median 95 ms) for peak of responses. Responses occurred before arm movement and at the time of or before onset of electromyographic (EMG) activity in prime mover muscles. Responses were time-locked to the stimulus and not to the onset of movement or EMG. Responses remained present in most neurons but were reduced when vision of the behavioral trigger stimulus was prevented while maintaining the associated acoustic signals. In another variation of the task, most neurons also responded to a stimulus that was physically identical to the behavioral trigger but to which the animal made no movement. The activity of a few DA neurons (11 of 128) was reduced following presentation of the behavioral trigger stimulus, with latencies comparable to those of activations. The activity of many DA neurons was increased (40 of 128) or reduced (22 of 128) during execution of the forelimb reaching movement. These changes were of a slow and moderate nature, and were minor compared with responses to the behavioral trigger stimulus. About half of movement-related neurons also responded to the behavioral trigger. The activity of a few DA neurons was increased (11 to 128) or reduced (1 to 128) when the food reward reached the mouth. These changes did not occur with spontaneous mouth movements. About half of these neurons also responded to the behavioral trigger.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“various subsets of dopamine neurons (1–44%) show slow, sluggish and diverse changes in the seconds time range that are inconsistently related to various aspects of behavioural task engagement and reactivity with stimulus-triggered or self-initiated arm or mouth movements11,12,14,18”
From Dopamine reward prediction-error signalling: A two-component response (2016) · cites this paper as [12]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
A neural substrate of prediction and reward
Schultz, W., Dayan, P., & Montague, P. R. (1997) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.275.5306.1593 · Cited by 9,388
Self-citationThe neural basis of drug craving: An incentive-sensitization theory of addiction
Robinson, T. (1993) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/0165-0173(93)90013-p · Cited by 7,346
Predictive reward signal of dopamine neurons
Schultz, W. (1998) · Journal of Neurophysiology · doi:10.1152/jn.1998.80.1.1 · Cited by 4,564
Self-citationWhat is the role of dopamine in reward: hedonic impact, reward learning, or incentive salience?
Berridge, K. C., & Robinson, T. E. (1998) · Brain Research Reviews · doi:10.1016/s0165-0173(98)00019-8 · Cited by 4,127
Getting formal with dopamine and reward
Schultz, W. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00967-4 · Cited by 2,574
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Schultz, W.
- Corresponding author
- Schultz, W.
- ORCID
- Schultz, W.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 1986-11-01
- Volume
- 56
- Issue
- 5
- Pages
- 1439-1461
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- OpenAlex
- W1831076810
- Cited by
- 390
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 12 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 15 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 14 · 2014: 8 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 8
- FWCI
- 1.96
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Journal of Neurophysiology (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
- Keywords
- midbrain dopaminergic neurons, substantia nigra pars compacta, behavioral reactivity, apomorphine, dopamine autoreceptors, food reward, single-unit activity, Parkinson's disease, monkeys
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Conditioning, Psychological, Dopamine, Female, Macaca fascicularis, Mesencephalon, Neurons, Reward
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