Cited by 52Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and TreatmentsNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesMotor Control and Adaptation

Action reprogramming in Parkinson's disease: Response to prediction error is modulated by levels of dopamine

Open access
Galea, Joseph M., Bestmann, Sven, Beigi, Mazda, Jahanshahi, Marjan, Rothwell, John C.·2012·The Journal of Neuroscience

Abstract

Humans are able to use knowledge of previous events to estimate the probability of future actions. Consequently, an unexpected event will elicit a prediction error as the prepared action has to be replaced by an unprepared option in a process known as "action reprogramming" (AR). Here we show that people with Parkinson's disease (PD) have a dopamine-sensitive deficit in AR that is proportional to the size of the prediction error. Participants performed a probabilistic reaction time (RT) task in the context of either a predictable or unpredictable environment. For an overall predictable sequence, PD patients, on and off dopamine medication, and healthy controls showed similar improvements in RT. However, in the context of a generally predictable sequence, PD patients off medication were impaired in reacting to unexpected events that elicit large prediction errors and require AR. Critically, this deficit in AR was modulated by the prediction error associated with the upcoming event. The prolongation of RT was not observed during an overall unpredictable sequence, in which relatively unexpected events evoke little prediction error and the requirement for AR should be minimal, given the context. The data are compatible with recent theoretical accounts suggesting that levels of dopamine encode the reliability, i.e., precision, of sensory information. In this scheme, PD patients off medication have low dopamine levels and may therefore be less confident about incoming sensory information and more reliant on top-down predictions. Consequently, when these internal predictions are incorrect, PD patients take longer to respond appropriately to unexpected sensory information.

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.3621-11.2012

Cites

53 of 53 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?

  • Precision is thought to be signaled by neuromodulators such as dopamine and acetylcholine, depending on the particular inferential hierarchy.

    “Precision is thought to be signaled by neuromodulators such as dopamine and acetylcholine, depending on the particular inferential hierarchy (21–23).”

    From The Predictive Coding Account of Psychosis (2018) · cites this paper as [22]

    The Discussion (page not provided) proposes that dopamine may encode the precision of sensory prediction errors. It does not address acetylcholine or say that the neuromodulator signaling precision depends on the inferential hierarchy. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • The dopaminergic system is crucial for predictive abilities.

    “which is crucial for predictive abilities (Galea et al., 2012)”

    From Predictive coding in neuropsychiatric disorders: a systematic transdiagnostic review. (2025) · cites this paper as Galea et al., 2012

    The Discussion (page not supplied) links dopamine to responding to sensory prediction errors, but distinguishes that response from forming predictions: patients off medication could learn predictable information yet reacted more slowly to violations. Thus the paper supports a role for dopamine in responding to prediction errors, not the broader claim that it is crucial for predictive abilities generally. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    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

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Galea, J. M., Bestmann, S., Beigi, M., Jahanshahi, M., & Rothwell, J. C.
Affiliations
UCL Queen Square Institute of Neurology (GB)
Venue
The Journal of Neuroscience
Published
2012-01-11
Volume
32
Issue
2
Pages
542-550
ISSN
  • 0270-6474 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-2401
OpenAlex
W2112918447
Cited by
52
References
53
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 6 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 6
FWCI
3.13
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)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council (MR/K00414X/1)
  • Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (BB/F02424X/1)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Neurology › Parkinson's Disease Mechanisms and Treatments
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
Keywords
Parkinson's disease, prediction error, dopamine, unexpected events, top-down prediction, reaction time (psychology)
MeSH terms
Aged, Aged, 80 and over, Basal Ganglia, Cues, Dopamine, Female, Humans, Male, Middle Aged, Models, Neurological, Parkinson Disease, Probability Learning, Reaction Time, Dopamine Agents, Anticipation, Psychological

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