Cited by 244Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorReinforcement Learning in Robotics

Testing the Reward Prediction Error Hypothesis with an Axiomatic Model

Open access
Rutledge, Robb B., Dean, Mark, Caplin, Andrew, Glimcher, Paul W.·2010·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Neuroimaging studies typically identify neural activity correlated with the predictions of highly parameterized models, like the many reward prediction error (RPE) models used to study reinforcement learning. Identified brain areas might encode RPEs or, alternatively, only have activity correlated with RPE model predictions. Here, we use an alternate axiomatic approach rooted in economic theory to formally test the entire class of RPE models on neural data. We show that measurements of human neural activity from the striatum, medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, and posterior cingulate cortex satisfy necessary and sufficient conditions for the entire class of RPE models. However, activity measured from the anterior insula falsifies the axiomatic model, and therefore no RPE model can account for measured activity. Further analysis suggests the anterior insula might instead encode something related to the salience of an outcome. As cognitive neuroscience matures and models proliferate, formal approaches of this kind that assess entire model classes rather than specific model exemplars may take on increased significance.

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.1747-10.2010

Cites

52 of 52 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?

  • When participants attributed outcomes to the neutral committee (their own performance), MBD activity was positively correlated with outcome.

    “When participants attributed outcomes to the neutral committee (their own performance), MBD activity was, as has been previously reported,50”

    From Two prefrontal-subcortical circuits estimate controllability and reflect its impact on learning (2026) · cites this paper as [51]

    The Results (Assessing the robustness of axiomatic RPE model tests; page unavailable) report no evidence of a reward-prediction-error signal in the midbrain regions tested. The paper does not address outcomes attributed to a neutral committee or participants’ own performance, so it cannot verify the claimed correlation in that condition (searched: neutral committee, own performance, midbrain activity). (LLM, conf=0.76)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The ventral striatum region of interest was derived from the nucleus accumbens ROI reported by Rutledge et al. (2010).

    “The VS ROI was based on Rutledge et al. (2010)9 nucleus accumbens ROI and was comprised of three 5 mm spheres for each hemisphere ([8 13 –3; 12 13 –8; 9 13 –7; –8 13 –3; –12 13 –8; –9 13 –7 ]).”

    From Representation of aversive prediction errors in the human periaqueductal gray (2014) · cites this paper as Rutledge et al. (2010)

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: 1

  1. Sutton RS Barto AG Gabriel M Moore J Time-derivative models of Pavlovian reinforcement. Learning and computational neuroscience: foundations of adaptive networks 1990 497 537 MIT Cambridge, MA

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Rutledge, R. B., Dean, M., Caplin, A., & Glimcher, P. W.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2010-10-06
Volume
30
Issue
40
Pages
13525-13536
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2035219495
Cited by
244
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 11 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 23 · 2022: 11 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 40 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 15 · 2015: 12 · 2014: 23 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 9
FWCI
5.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • National Institutes of Health (5r01ns054775-05)
  • National Defense Science and Engineering Graduate
  • National Institute on Aging (F31AG031656)
  • National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (R01-NS-054775)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Reinforcement Learning in Robotics
Keywords
reward prediction error, axiomatic model, reinforcement learning, model falsifiability, striatum, medial prefrontal cortex, amygdala, posterior cingulate cortex, anterior insula, neural coding, model comparison
MeSH terms
Adult, Algorithms, Behavior, Brain Mapping, Cognition, Female, Forecasting, Humans, Image Processing, Computer-Assisted, Functional Laterality, Learning, Male, Models, Neurological, Models, Psychological, Predictive Value of Tests, Regression Analysis, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Prosencephalon

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