Cited by 103Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorMemory and Neural Mechanisms

Evidence of action sequence chunking in goal-directed instrumental conditioning and its dependence on the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex.

Open access
Ostlund, S. B., Winterbauer, N. E., Balleine, B. W.·2009·Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The current study investigated the contribution of the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex (dmPFC) to instrumental action selection. We found that cell body lesions of the dmPFC, centered on the medial agranular area, spared rats' ability to choose between actions based on either the value or the discriminative stimulus properties of an outcome. We next examined the effects of these lesions on action sequence learning using a concurrent bidirectional heterogeneous chain task in which the identity of the reward delivered was determined by the order in which the two lever press actions were performed. Although both lesioned rats and sham controls learned to perform the task, we found that they relied on different behavioral strategies to do so. In subsequent tests, rats in the sham group were able to withhold their performance of a sequence when either its associated outcome was devalued or the contingency between that sequence and its outcome was degraded by delivering the outcome noncontingently. Interestingly, lesioned rats failed to reorganize their performance at the action sequence level and, rather, were found to withhold their performance of the terminal response in the sequence that had earned the devalued outcome relative to the more distal response, suggesting that they represented the elements of the sequence as distinct behavioral units. These findings demonstrate that rats can use sequence-level representations, or action chunks, to organize their behavior in a goal-directed manner and indicate that the dmPFC plays a critical role in this process.

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.1176-09.2009

Cites

3 of 3 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?

  • The increase in dopaminergic and noradrenergic availability in the PFC of SHR rats might be critical in restoring goal-directed actions by enhancing attentional mechanisms necessary for carrying out goal-directed behavior.

    “Thus, the increase in dopaminergic and noradrenergic availability in the PFC of SHR rats might be critical in restoring goal-directed actions by enhancing attentional mechanisms necessary for carrying out goal-directed behavior (Ostlund and Balleine, 2005; Ostlund et al., 2009).”

    From The Effects of Methylphenidate on Goal-directed Behavior in a Rat Model of ADHD (2015) · cites this paper as Ostlund et al., 2009

    The Discussion reports that the dorsomedial PFC helps rats use action-sequence representations in a goal-directed manner. It does not address SHR rats, increased dopamine or noradrenaline availability, or an attentional mechanism for restoring goal-directed actions. The paper also limits the dmPFC’s role to action chunking rather than goal-directed action selection generally. (LLM, conf=0.82)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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. Lashley KS (1951) The problem of serial order in behavior. In: Cerebral mechanisms in behavior (Jefferies LA, ed), pp 112-136. New York: Wiley.
  2. Passingham RE (1993) The frontal lobes and voluntary action. Oxford, UK: Oxford UP.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Ostlund, S. B., Winterbauer, N. E., & Balleine, B. W.
Affiliations
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • University of Vermont (US)
  • The University of Sydney (AU)
Venue
Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2009-06-24
Volume
29
Issue
25
Pages
8280-8287
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W1981439408
Cited by
103
References
3
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 8 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 5
FWCI
2.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institute of Mental Health (T32MH017140, MH 17140)
  • National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (#HD59257)
  • Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (R01HD059257, HD59257)
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
dorsomedial prefrontal cortex, operant conditioning, action selection, sequence learning, outcome devaluation, contingency degradation, behavioral strategies, goal-directed behavior, rats
MeSH terms
Animals, Association Learning, Behavior, Animal, Brain Injuries, Choice Behavior, Conditioning, Classical, Discrimination Learning, Female, Microinjections, Reaction Time, N-Methylaspartate, Prefrontal Cortex, Excitatory Amino Acid Agonists, Rats, Long-Evans, Rats

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