Evidence map›Paper›PMID 22487032›Full record

Trial reportThe European journal of neuroscience2012

Dissociating hippocampal and striatal contributions to sequential prediction learning.

Aaron M Bornstein, Nathaniel D Daw

Abstract readComparative StudyRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in The European journal of neuroscience, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 61 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
61citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

61 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Brain networks for confidence weighting and hierarchical inference during probabilistic learning.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2017
    Trial
  3. Adult age differences in learning on a sequentially cued prediction task.The journals of gerontology. Series B, Psychological sciences and social sciences · 2014
    Trial
  4. Discovery, Interruption, and Updating of Auditory Regularities in Memory: Evidence from Low-Frequency Brain Dynamics in Human MEG.The Journal of neuroscience : the official journal of the Society for Neuroscience · 2026
    Article
  5. Article
  6. Trial-by-trial learning of successor representations in human behavior.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025
    Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Replay in the human visual cortex during brief task pauses is linked to implicit learning of successor representations.Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America · 2025
    Article
  10. Article
  11. A dopaminergic basis of behavioral control.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2024
    Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Article

1 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

2 authors.

Aaron M BornsteinDepartment of Psychology, New York University, 4 Washington Pl. Suite 888, New York, NY 10003, USA. aaronb@nyu.edu
Nathaniel D Daw

Funding

CRCNS: Reinforcement learning in multi-dimensional action spacesR01MH087882 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI DAW, NATHANIEL DOUGLASS · 2009 to 2013
$1.8M
Computational mechanisms of goal-directed controlF31MH095501 · NIMH · NEW YORK UNIVERSITY · PI BORNSTEIN, AARON MICHAEL · 2011 to 2012
$70k
NIMH NIH HHS 1R01MH087882-01NIMH NIH HHS F31 MH095501NIMH NIH HHS R01 MH087882
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Behavior may be generated on the basis of many different kinds of learned contingencies. For instance, responses could be guided by the direct association between a stimulus and response, or by sequential stimulus-stimulus relationships (as in model-based reinforcement learning or goal-directed actions). However, the neural architecture underlying sequential predictive learning is not well understood, in part because it is difficult to isolate its effect on choice behavior. To track such learning more directly, we examined reaction times (RTs) in a probabilistic sequential picture identification task in healthy individuals. We used computational learning models to isolate trial-by-trial effects of two distinct learning processes in behavior, and used these as signatures to analyse the separate neural substrates of each process. RTs were best explained via the combination of two delta rule learning processes with different learning rates. To examine neural manifestations of these learning processes, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging to seek correlates of time-series related to expectancy or surprise. We observed such correlates in two regions, hippocampus and striatum. By estimating the learning rates best explaining each signal, we verified that they were uniquely associated with one of the two distinct processes identified behaviorally. These differential correlates suggest that complementary anticipatory functions drive each region's effect on behavior. Our results provide novel insights as to the quantitative computational distinctions between medial temporal and basal ganglia learning networks and enable experiments that exploit trial-by-trial measurement of the unique contributions of both hippocampus and striatum to response behavior.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultCorpus StriatumFemaleForecastingHippocampusHumansLearningMalePhotic StimulationPsychomotor PerformanceReaction TimeYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID22487032
PMCPMC3325519

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.