Functional heterogeneity within the rodent lateral orbitofrontal cortex dissociates outcome devaluation and reversal learning deficits
Open accessPublished version of a preprint
Abstract
The orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) is critical for updating reward-directed behaviours flexibly when outcomes are devalued or when task contingencies are reversed. Failure to update behaviour in outcome devaluation and reversal learning procedures are considered canonical deficits following OFC lesions in non-human primates and rodents. We examined the generality of these findings in rodents using lesions of the rodent lateral OFC (LO) in instrumental action-outcome and Pavlovian cue-outcome devaluation procedures. LO lesions disrupted outcome devaluation in Pavlovian but not instrumental procedures. Furthermore, although both anterior and posterior LO lesions disrupted Pavlovian outcome devaluation, only posterior LO lesions were found to disrupt reversal learning. Posterior but not anterior LO lesions were also found to disrupt the attribution of motivational value to Pavlovian cues in sign-tracking. These novel dissociable task- and subregion-specific effects suggest a way to reconcile contradictory findings between rodent and non-human primate OFC research.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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?
OFC has no, or limited, contribution to behavior flexibility and defining decision strategies.
“In addition, other prior studies have shown the OFC has no, or a limited contribution to behavior flexibility and defining decision strategies45,46.”
From Dissociable roles of prefrontal plasticity in decision-making strategy and execution of habitual behavior (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
The Discussion reports that OFC lesions did not impair instrumental flexibility after outcome devaluation, supporting a limited role in that task. But it also reports a role in Pavlovian flexibility and a reversal-learning deficit after posterior lateral OFC lesions. The paper does not establish the broader claim that the OFC has no or limited contribution to defining decision strategies. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredRewarded experience updates the model for stimulus-response-outcome associations when using a model-based learning strategy.
“As conceptualized by computational studies2,41,46, rewarded experience updates the model for stimulus-response-outcome associations when using a model-based learning strategy.”
From Dissociable roles of prefrontal plasticity in decision-making strategy and execution of habitual behavior (2026) · cites this paper as [46]
The Discussion’s “Theoretical accounts of OFC function” section describes learned stimulus–reward associations as part of a model of task structure, and the Introduction says behavior is updated when reward contingencies change. But the paper does not specifically say that rewarded experience updates a model of stimulus–response–outcome associations; its discussion distinguishes Pavlovian cue–outcome relationships from instrumental actions. No page numbers are available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.83)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThis is consistent with intact acquisition of Pavlovian responses but impaired reversal learning in OFC-lesioned animals.
“This is consistent with the reported intact acquisition of Pavlovian responses, but impaired reversal learning in OFC‐lesioned animals.”
From Behavioral flexibility in a mouse model for obsessive‐compulsive disorder: Impaired Pavlovian reversal learning in SAPAP3 mutants (2019) · cites this paper as [66]
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 99 · Cited by 69
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- Paxinos G Watson C 1997 The Rat Brain in Stereotaxic Coordinates(3rd Ed) San Diego Academic Press
- Rolls ET 2014 Emotion and Decision-Making explained(First Edit) New York Oxford University Press
- Authors
- Panayi, M. C., & Killcross, S.
- Affiliations
- UNSW Sydney (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Panayi, Marios C
- Venue
- eLife
- Publisher
- eLife Sciences Publications, Ltd
- Published
- 2018-07-25
- Volume
- 7
- ISSN
- 2050-084X (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC6101941
- OpenAlex
- W2883883444
- Cited by
- 69
- References
- 99
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 12 · 2021: 20 · 2020: 4 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 1
- FWCI
- 5.81
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- eLife (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
- Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Australian Research Council (DP0989027, DP120103564)
- 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
- orbitofrontal cortex, lateral orbitofrontal cortex, outcome devaluation, reversal learning, classical conditioning, operant conditioning, sign-tracking, motivational value, functional heterogeneity
- MeSH terms
- Animals, Conditioning, Psychological, Male, Motor Activity, Reversal Learning, Taste, Prefrontal Cortex, Rats, Long-Evans
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
