Cited by 148Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Stimulus representation and the timing of reward-prediction errors in models of the dopamine system

Ludvig, Elliot A., Sutton, Richard S., Kehoe, E. James·2008·Neural Computation

Abstract

The phasic firing of dopamine neurons has been theorized to encode a reward-prediction error as formalized by the temporal-difference (TD) algorithm in reinforcement learning. Most TD models of dopamine have assumed a stimulus representation, known as the complete serial compound, in which each moment in a trial is distinctly represented. We introduce a more realistic temporal stimulus representation for the TD model. In our model, all external stimuli, including rewards, spawn a series of internal microstimuli, which grow weaker and more diffuse over time. These microstimuli are used by the TD learning algorithm to generate predictions of future reward. This new stimulus representation injects temporal generalization into the TD model and enhances correspondence between model and data in several experiments, including those when rewards are omitted or received early. This improved fit mostly derives from the absence of large negative errors in the new model, suggesting that dopamine alone can encode the full range of TD errors in these situations.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1162/neco.2008.11-07-654

Cites

45 of 45 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?

  • The temporal precision of tuning decreased with elapsed time.

    “We observed that individual units in our RNNs were tuned to elapsed time relative to observations, and that the temporal precision of tuning decreased with elapsed time (S1 Fig), both of which are standard assumptions of microstate representations [41].”
  • Individual units in the RNNs were tuned to elapsed time relative to observations.

    “We observed that individual units in our RNNs were tuned to elapsed time relative to observations, and that the temporal precision of tuning decreased with elapsed time (S1 Fig), both of which are standard assumptions of microstate representations [41].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ludvig, E. A., Sutton, R. S., & Kehoe, E. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • UNSW Sydney (AU)
Venue
Neural Computation
Publisher
MIT Press
Published
2008-12
Volume
20
Issue
12
Pages
3034-3054
ISSN
  • 0899-7667 (ISSN-L)
  • 1530-888X
OpenAlex
W2011868317
Cited by
148
References
45
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 5 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 6 · 2012: 8
FWCI
3.74
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Neural Computation (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Warwick Research Archive Portal (University of Warwick) (acceptedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
dopaminergic neurons, reward prediction error, temporal difference learning, stimulus representation, temporal generalization, reinforcement learning models
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Algorithms, Animals, Cues, Dopamine, Humans, Models, Neurological, Neurons, Reaction Time, Reward, Time Factors

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