The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Dopamine neurons of the monkey midbrain: contingencies of responses to active touch during self-initiated arm movements
Abstract
1. Previous studies have shown that midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons in monkeys respond to external stimuli that are used to initiate behavioral reactions. In the present study, we investigated to what extent changes in neuronal activity would occur when behavioral acts are generated internally or whether they would depend solely on external stimuli. 2. Monkeys performed self-initiated arm movements from a resting key into a covered, food-containing box at a self-chosen moment and without external preparatory or triggering signals. In a second task, the arm movement was triggered by rapid opening of the door of the food box. This stimulus was either audible and visible or only audible to the animal. Impulses of DA neurons were recorded with movable microelectrodes from the pars compacta of substantia nigra (area A9) and areas A8 and A10 and were discriminated from those of other neurons by their long duration (1.5-5.0 ms) and low spontaneous frequency (0.5-8.5 imp/s). 3. The activity of 12% of 104 DA neurons increased slowly and moderately up to 1,500 ms before the onset of individual self-initiated arm movements. Median increases amounted to 91% over background discharge rate. A further 16% of DA neurons were activated together with the onset of muscle activity and during the movement. 4. During self-initiated movements, a nonhabituating, phasic burst of impulses occurred when the monkey's hand touched a morsel of food inside the box. This response was seen in 84% of 154 neurons on the contralateral side, with median onset latency of 65 ms and duration of 160 ms. A comparable percentage of neurons responded to ipsilateral touch with similar latency and duration. 5. The touch response during self-initiated movements was absent, both on the contra- and ipsilateral sides, when the animal's hand touched the bare wire normally holding the food, when touching nonfood objects, or during tactile exploration of the empty interior of the food box. Thus responses appeared to be related to the appetitive properties of the object being touched rather than the object itself. 6. In the task employing stimulus-triggered movements, 77% of 86 DA neurons discharged a burst of impulses in response to door opening but entirely failed to respond to the touch of food in the box. The response to door opening in this task was similar to the touch response during self-initiated movements in the same neurons in terms of latency, duration, and magnitude.(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 [14]
Citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
The 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
“This would dramatically accelerate the (Romo and Schultz 1990).”
BackgroundSelf-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
Dopamine, learning and motivation.
Wise, R. A. (2004) · Nature Reviews Neuroscience · doi:10.1038/nrn1406 · Cited by 3,379
Getting formal with dopamine and reward
Schultz, W. (2002) · Neuron · doi:10.1016/s0896-6273(02)00967-4 · Cited by 2,574
“These data might ward-predicting stimuli (which are tested in separate trials) (Romo and Schultz, 1990; Mirenowicz and Schultz,sugggest that phasic dopamine activations reflect attention-inducing properties of stimuli, including rewards, 1994).”
Self-citation
Metadata
- Authors
- Romo, R., & Schultz, W.
- Affiliations
- University of Fribourg (CH)
- ORCID
- Romo, R.
- Venue
- Journal of Neurophysiology
- Publisher
- American Physiological Society
- Published
- 1990-03-01
- Volume
- 63
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 592-606
- ISSN
- 0022-3077 (ISSN-L)
- 1522-1598
- OpenAlex
- W2129717318
- Cited by
- 353
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 7 · 2020: 8 · 2019: 11 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 18 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 13
- FWCI
- 3.21
- 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
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Keywords
- dopaminergic neurons, midbrain, substantia nigra pars compacta, active touch, anticipatory activity, single-unit recording, ipsilateral and contralateral responses
- MeSH terms
- Action Potentials, Animals, Arm, Dopamine, Female, Macaca, Macaca fascicularis, Male, Muscles, Psychomotor Performance, Substantia Nigra, Touch
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