Cited by 97Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMemory and Neural MechanismsNeural dynamics and brain function

A probability distribution over latent causes, in the orbitofrontal cortex

Open access
Chan, Stephanie C. Y., Niv, Yael, Norman, Kenneth A.·2016·The Journal of Neuroscience

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

UNLABELLED: The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) has been implicated in both the representation of "state," in studies of reinforcement learning and decision making, and also in the representation of "schemas," in studies of episodic memory. Both of these cognitive constructs require a similar inference about the underlying situation or "latent cause" that generates our observations at any given time. The statistically optimal solution to this inference problem is to use Bayes' rule to compute a posterior probability distribution over latent causes. To test whether such a posterior probability distribution is represented in the OFC, we tasked human participants with inferring a probability distribution over four possible latent causes, based on their observations. Using fMRI pattern similarity analyses, we found that BOLD activity in the OFC is best explained as representing the (log-transformed) posterior distribution over latent causes. Furthermore, this pattern explained OFC activity better than other task-relevant alternatives, such as the most probable latent cause, the most recent observation, or the uncertainty over latent causes. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Our world is governed by hidden (latent) causes that we cannot observe, but which generate the observations we see. A range of high-level cognitive processes require inference of a probability distribution (or "belief distribution") over the possible latent causes that might be generating our current observations. This is true for reinforcement learning and decision making (where the latent cause comprises the true "state" of the task), and for episodic memory (where memories are believed to be organized by the inferred situation or "schema"). Using fMRI, we show that this belief distribution over latent causes is encoded in patterns of brain activity in the orbitofrontal cortex, an area that has been separately implicated in the representations of both states and schemas.

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 · 10.1523/jneurosci.0659-16.2016

Cites

36 of 36 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?

  • Orbitofrontal cortex tracks hidden states and encodes how likely each candidate latent cause is at a given moment in inference.

    “Neurally, the orbitofrontal cortex, which is sensitive to unobservable states [51], has been shown to represent the probability that each latent cause is currently active during the inference process [52].”

    From Does mental context drift or shift? (2017) · cites this paper as [52]

  • It is possible that the brain represents probability distributions over small collections of variables or variational approximations to probability distributions, but this would not affect the key argument, which stems from the unavoidable difficulty of finding isolated peaks in, and calculating the volume of, complex probability distributions.

    “Of course, it is possible that the brain represents probability distributions over small collections of variables [90,91], or variational approximations to probability distributions [92], but this would not affect our key argument, which stems from the unavoidable difficulty of finding isolated peaks in, and calculating the volume of, complex probability distributions.”

    From Bayesian Brains without Probabilities (2016) · cites this paper as [91]

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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Chan, S. C. Y., Niv, Y., & Norman, K. A.
Affiliations
Princeton University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2016-07-27
Volume
36
Issue
30
Pages
7817-7828
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2952868242
Cited by
97
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 7 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 12 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 1
FWCI
6.72
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Science Foundation (1009542)
  • National Institutes of Health (IIS-1009542)
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH065214)
  • Army Research Office (W911NF1410101)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Memory and Neural Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural dynamics and brain function
Keywords
orbitofrontal cortex, posterior distribution, Bayesian inference, belief representation, state representation, schemas, episodic memory, reinforcement learning, decision-making, BOLD activation
MeSH terms
Action Potentials, Adolescent, Adult, Cognition, Computer Simulation, Decision Making, Female, Humans, Learning, Male, Models, Neurological, Reaction Time, Models, Statistical, Causality, Prefrontal Cortex, Young Adult

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