Cited by 40Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Noradrenergic and Cholinergic Modulation of Belief Updating

Open access
Jepma, Marieke, Brown, Stephen B. R. E., Murphy, Peter R., Koelewijn, Stephany C., de Vries, Boukje, van den Maagdenberg, Arn M., Nieuwenhuis, Sander·2018·Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience

Abstract

To make optimal predictions in a dynamic environment, the impact of new observations on existing beliefs—that is, the learning rate—should be guided by ongoing estimates of change and uncertainty. Theoretical work has proposed specific computational roles for various neuromodulatory systems in the control of learning rate, but empirical evidence is still sparse. The aim of the current research was to examine the role of the noradrenergic and cholinergic systems in learning rate regulation. First, we replicated our recent findings that the centroparietal P3 component of the EEG—an index of phasic catecholamine release in the cortex—predicts trial-to-trial variability in learning rate and mediates the effects of surprise and belief uncertainty on learning rate (Study 1, n = 17). Second, we found that pharmacological suppression of either norepinephrine or acetylcholine activity produced baseline-dependent effects on learning rate following nonobvious changes in an outcome-generating process (Study 1). Third, we identified two genes, coding for α2A receptor sensitivity ( ADRA2A) and norepinephrine reuptake ( NET), as promising targets for future research on the genetic basis of individual differences in learning rate (Study 2, n = 137). Our findings suggest a role for the noradrenergic and cholinergic systems in belief updating and underline the importance of studying interactions between different neuromodulatory systems.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/jocn_a_01317

Cites

80 of 80 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • Baseline task performance in a placebo condition frequently predicts the behavioral effects of catecholaminergic manipulations.

    “Second, baseline task performance (in a placebo condition) was considered, as it frequently predicts the behavioral effects of catecholaminergic manipulations (Cools & Robbins, 2004; Jepma et al., 2016, 2018) and therefore may indicate an individual’s baseline placement on the inverted-U curve relating dopamine activity and WM performance.”

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Figure A1. (This figure is related to Figure 6 in the main text.) Baseline-dependent drug effects on learning rate for different levels of change point probability. Trials were divided in nine bins, using the change point probabilities indicated on the left side of each plot as cutoff values. Note that, as change point probability was not equally distributed, the different bins contained different numbers of trials. The gray distributions are permutation distributions of the correlation coefficients predicted by regression to the mean in each bin, and the red lines indicate the observed correlations. 1818 Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience Volume 30, Number 12
  2. Doya, K. (2007). Bayesian brain: Probabilistic approaches to neural coding. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Jepma, M., Brown, S. B. R. E., Murphy, P. R., Koelewijn, S. C., de Vries, B., van den Maagdenberg, A. M., & Nieuwenhuis, S.
Affiliations
  • Leiden University (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Center (NL)
  • Leiden University Medical Centre
Venue
Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2018-12
Volume
30
Issue
12
Pages
1803-1820
ISSN
  • 0898-929X (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-8898
OpenAlex
W2886901971
Cited by
39
References
80
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 8 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6
FWCI
2.38
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Leiden Repository (Leiden University) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • UvA-DARE (University of Amsterdam) (submittedVersion)
  • Data Archiving and Networked Services (DANS) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Universiteit van Amsterdam
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 › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
Keywords
belief updating, learning rate, noradrenergic system, cholinergic system, P300, catecholamine release, surprise, belief uncertainty, norepinephrine, acetylcholine, ADRA2A, .NET, individual differences, neuromodulation
MeSH terms
Acetylcholine, Adolescent, Adult, Brain, Clonidine, Double-Blind Method, Electroencephalography, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Norepinephrine, Scopolamine, Receptors, Adrenergic, alpha-2, Cross-Over Studies, Cholinergic Antagonists, Uncertainty, Norepinephrine Plasma Membrane Transport Proteins, Young Adult, Genetic Association Studies, Adrenergic alpha-2 Receptor Agonists, Anticipation, Psychological

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