Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32525345›Full record

ArticlePsychological review2020

A systems-neuroscience model of phasic dopamine.

Jessica A Mollick, Thomas E Hazy, Kai A Krueger, Ananta Nair, Prescott Mackie, Seth A Herd, Randall C O'Reilly

Open access · hybridAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Psychological review, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
2.2field-weighted citation impact, top 12% of its field
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

9 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Neural Mechanisms of Human Decision-Making.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  6. Higher-Order Conditioning: What Is Learnt and How it Is Expressed.Frontiers in behavioral neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  7. The Neural Correlates of Cued Reward Omission.Frontiers in human neuroscience · 2021
    Article
  8. Unraveling the Mysteries of Motivation.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2020
    Review
  9. Review
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

7 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Jessica A MollickDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.ORCID 0000-0001-5874-9557
Thomas E HazyDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
Kai A KruegerDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
Ananta NairDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
Prescott MackieDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
Seth A HerdDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
Randall C O'ReillyDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience, University of Colorado Boulder.
University of Colorado Boulder · US

Funding

A Neurobiologically-based Neural Network Model of Risky Decision-makingR01GM109996 · NIGMS · UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA · PI MILLER, LYNN C, READ, STEPHEN J · 2015 to 2018
$1.8M
NIGMS NIH HHS R01 GM109996NIH HHS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We describe a neurobiologically informed computational model of phasic dopamine signaling to account for a wide range of findings, including many considered inconsistent with the simple reward prediction error (RPE) formalism. The central feature of this PVLV framework is a distinction between a primary value (PV) system for anticipating primary rewards (Unconditioned Stimuli [USs]), and a learned value (LV) system for learning about stimuli associated with such rewards (CSs). The LV system represents the amygdala, which drives phasic bursting in midbrain dopamine areas, while the PV system represents the ventral striatum, which drives shunting inhibition of dopamine for expected USs (via direct inhibitory projections) and phasic pausing for expected USs (via the lateral habenula). Our model accounts for data supporting the separability of these systems, including individual differences in CS-based (sign-tracking) versus US-based learning (goal-tracking). Both systems use competing opponent-processing pathways representing evidence for and against specific USs, which can explain data dissociating the processes involved in acquisition versus extinction conditioning. Further, opponent processing proved critical in accounting for the full range of conditioned inhibition phenomena, and the closely related paradigm of second-order conditioning. Finally, we show how additional separable pathways representing aversive USs, largely mirroring those for appetitive USs, also have important differences from the positive valence case, allowing the model to account for several important phenomena in aversive conditioning. Overall, accounting for all of these phenomena strongly constrains the model, thus providing a well-validated framework for understanding phasic dopamine signaling. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Indexed as

DopamineModels, NeurologicalRewardAmygdalaConditioning, ClassicalConditioning, PsychologicalHumansLearningDopamine

Identifiers

PMID32525345
PMCPMC8453660
OpenAlexW3033060783

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.