Cited by 32Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior

Expectancy, ambiguity, and behavioral flexibility: separable and complementary roles of the orbital frontal cortex and amygdala in processing reward expectancies

Pauli, Wolfgang M., Hazy, Thomas E., O'Reilly, Randall C.·2012·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

Appetitive goal-directed behavior can be associated with a cue-triggered expectancy that it will lead to a particular reward, a process thought to depend on the OFC and basolateral amygdala complex. We developed a biologically informed neural network model of this system to investigate the separable and complementary roles of these areas as the main components of a flexible expectancy system. These areas of interest are part of a neural network with additional subcortical areas, including the central nucleus of amygdala, ventral (limbic) and dorsomedial (associative) striatum. Our simulations are consistent with the view that the amygdala maintains Pavlovian associations through incremental updating of synaptic strength and that the OFC supports flexibility by maintaining an activation-based working memory of the recent reward history. Our model provides a mechanistic explanation for electrophysiological evidence that cue-related firing in OFC neurons is nonselectively early after a contingency change and why this nonselective firing is critical for promoting plasticity in the amygdala. This ambiguous activation results from the simultaneous maintenance of recent outcomes and obsolete Pavlovian contingencies in working memory. Furthermore, at the beginning of reversal, the OFC is critical for supporting responses that are no longer inappropriate. This result is inconsistent with an exclusive inhibitory account of OFC function.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_00155

Cites

115 of 115 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?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 117 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pauli, W. M., Hazy, T. E., & O'Reilly, R. C.
Affiliations
University of Colorado Boulder (US)
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Published
2012-02-01
Volume
24
Issue
2
Pages
351-366
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2110416412
Cited by
32
References
117
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2019: 3 · 2017: 2 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 3 · 2012: 3
FWCI
1.30
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Office of Naval Research
  • National Institute of Mental Health (P50MH079485, R01MH069597, MH079485, MH069597)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Keywords
reward expectancy, orbitofrontal cortex, amygdala, classical conditioning, behavioral flexibility, working memory, neural network model, reversal learning, synaptic plasticity, basolateral amygdala, central amygdala, striatum
MeSH terms
Amygdala, Computer Simulation, Conditioning, Psychological, Frontal Lobe, Humans, Models, Neurological, Nerve Net, Neural Pathways, 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