Cited by 350Neural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on BehaviorDecision-Making and Behavioral Economics

Frontal cortex subregions play distinct roles in choices between actions and stimuli

Open access
Rudebeck, Peter H., Behrens, Timothy E., Kennerley, Steven W., Baxter, Mark G., Buckley, Mark J., Walton, Mark E., Rushworth, Matthew F. S.·2008·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) has been implicated in reinforcement-guided decision making, error monitoring, and the reversal of behavior in response to changing circumstances. The anterior cingulate cortex sulcus (ACC S), however, has also been implicated in similar aspects of behavior. Dissociating the unique functions of these areas would improve our understanding of the decision-making process. The effect of selective OFC lesions on how monkeys used the history of reinforcement to guide choices of either particular actions or particular stimuli was studied and compared with the effects of ACC S lesions. Both lesions disrupted decision making, but their effects were differentially modulated by the dependence on action– or stimulus–value contingencies. OFC lesions caused a deficit in stimulus but not action selection, whereas ACC S lesions had the opposite effect, disrupting action but not stimulus selection. Furthermore, OFC lesions that have previously been found to impair decision making when deterministic stimulus–reward contingencies are switched were found to cause a more general learning impairment in more naturalistic situations in which reward was stochastic. Both OFC and ACC S are essential for reinforcement-guided decision making rather than just error monitoring or behavioral reversal. The OFC and ACC S are both, however, more concerned with learning and making decisions, but their roles in selecting between stimulus and action values are distinct.

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.3541-08.2008

Cites

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?

  • Lesions of PFo affect learning of object-reward mappings, whether these mappings change probabilistically or deterministically.

    “Lesions of PFo affect the learning of object-reward mappings, whether these mappings change in a probabilistic (90) or deterministic way.”
  • PFo lesions produce a deficit in stimulus-based, but not action-based learning, whereas anterior cingulate cortex lesions have the opposite effect.

    “They found that PFo lesions produced a deficit in stimulus-based, but not action-based learning, whereas anterior cingulate cortex lesions had the opposite effect.”
  • Updating of object-outcome and rule-outcome mappings needs to occur to make good choices in serial object-reversal and to optimize reward probability.

    “This updating needs to occur in order to make good choices in the serial object-reversal task (91) and when making object choices that optimize the probability of reward (90).”
  • The anterior cingulate cortex appears to be involved in learning actions to obtain rewards (action-outcome learning), where the outcome refers to the reward or punisher for which an action is being learned.

    “However, the anterior cingulate cortex appears to be involved in learning actions to obtain rewards (action–outcome learning), where the outcome refers to the reward or punisher for which an action is being learned (Rudebeck et al., 2008; Camille et al., 2011; Rushworth et al., 2011, 2012; Rolls, 2019b,c).”

    From The orbitofrontal cortex: reward, emotion and depression (2020) · cites this paper as Rudebeck et al., 2008

Self-check

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

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

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 46 · Cited by 350

Authors
Rudebeck, P. H., Behrens, T. E., Kennerley, S. W., Baxter, M. G., Buckley, M. J., Walton, M. E., & Rushworth, M. F. S.
Affiliations
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • University of California, Berkeley (US)
  • National Institutes of Health (US)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2008-12-17
Volume
28
Issue
51
Pages
13775-13785
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2081413820
Cited by
350
References
46
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 17 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 10 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 19 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 19 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 25 · 2012: 15
FWCI
12.75
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Neuroscience (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-sa)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Wellcome Trust
  • Medical Research Council
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cellular and Molecular Neuroscience › Neurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › General Decision Sciences › Decision-Making and Behavioral Economics
Keywords
orbitofrontal cortex, action selection, stimulus selection, error monitoring, monkeys
MeSH terms
Animals, Cerebral Decortication, Choice Behavior, Discrimination Learning, Frontal Lobe, Gyrus Cinguli, Macaca mulatta, Male, Motor Activity, Photic Stimulation, Reinforcement, Psychology, Reward, Stochastic Processes

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