ArticleBrain and cognition2016
Dopamine dependence in aggregate feedback learning: A computational cognitive neuroscience approach.
Article in Brain and cognition, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
6 citing papers in PubMed, 8 citations in OpenAlex.
- Article
- Category learning in a recurrent neural network with reinforcement learning.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2022Article
- Differing effects of gain and loss feedback on rule-based and information-integration category learning.Psychonomic bulletin & review · 2021Article
- Function and Regulation of ALDH1A1-Positive Nigrostriatal Dopaminergic Neurons in Motor Control and Parkinson's Disease.Frontiers in neural circuits · 2021Review
- Distinct Connectivity and Functionality of Aldehyde Dehydrogenase 1a1-Positive Nigrostriatal Dopaminergic Neurons in Motor Learning.Cell reports · 2019Article
- Perceptual category learning and visual processing: An exercise in computational cognitive neuroscience.Neural networks : the official journal of the International Neural Network Society · 2017Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
Abstract
Procedural learning of skills depends on dopamine-mediated striatal plasticity. Most prior work investigated single stimulus-response procedural learning followed by feedback. However, many skills include several actions that must be performed before feedback is available. A new procedural-learning task is developed in which three independent and successive unsupervised categorization responses receive aggregate feedback indicating either that all three responses were correct, or at least one response was incorrect. Experiment 1 showed superior learning of stimuli in position 3, and that learning in the first two positions was initially compromised, and then recovered. An extensive theoretical analysis that used parameter space partitioning found that a large class of procedural-learning models, which predict propagation of dopamine release from feedback to stimuli, and/or an eligibility trace, fail to fully account for these data. The analysis also suggested that any dopamine released to the second or third stimulus impaired categorization learning in the first and second positions. A second experiment tested and confirmed a novel prediction of this large class of procedural-learning models that if the to-be-learned actions are introduced one-by-one in succession then learning is much better if training begins with the first action (and works forwards) than if it begins with the last action (and works backwards).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.