ArticleNature communications2024
Learning to express reward prediction error-like dopaminergic activity requires plastic representations of time.
Article in Nature communications, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Neurotransmitters in memory destabilization: An integrative perspective framed by prediction error and novelty.Cognitive, affective & behavioral neuroscience · 2026Review
- Multisystem regulation of reward and addiction: beyond the dopaminergic system.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2026Review
- Article
- Article
- Dopamine dynamics underlying maternal motivation and reward.Neuroscience research · 2025Review
- Negative affect-driven impulsivity as hierarchical model-based overgeneralization.Trends in cognitive sciences · 2025Review
- Dopamine release plateau and outcome signals in dorsal striatum contrast with classic reinforcement learning formulations.Nature communications · 2024Article
- Learning to express reward prediction error-like dopaminergic activity requires plastic representations of time.Nature communications · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
- Update of
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
Abstract
The dominant theoretical framework to account for reinforcement learning in the brain is temporal difference learning (TD) learning, whereby certain units signal reward prediction errors (RPE). The TD algorithm has been traditionally mapped onto the dopaminergic system, as firing properties of dopamine neurons can resemble RPEs. However, certain predictions of TD learning are inconsistent with experimental results, and previous implementations of the algorithm have made unscalable assumptions regarding stimulus-specific fixed temporal bases. We propose an alternate framework to describe dopamine signaling in the brain, FLEX (Flexibly Learned Errors in Expected Reward). In FLEX, dopamine release is similar, but not identical to RPE, leading to predictions that contrast to those of TD. While FLEX itself is a general theoretical framework, we describe a specific, biophysically plausible implementation, the results of which are consistent with a preponderance of both existing and reanalyzed experimental data.
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.