Article

Explicit neural signals reflecting reward uncertainty.

Department of Physiology, Development and Neuroscience, University of Cambridge, Downing Street, Cambridge CB2 3DY, UK.
Philosophical Transactions of The Royal Society B Biological Sciences (Impact Factor: 6.23). 11/2008; 363(1511):3801-11. DOI: 10.1098/rstb.2008.0152
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The acknowledged importance of uncertainty in economic decision making has stimulated the search for neural signals that could influence learning and inform decision mechanisms. Current views distinguish two forms of uncertainty, namely risk and ambiguity, depending on whether the probability distributions of outcomes are known or unknown. Behavioural neurophysiological studies on dopamine neurons revealed a risk signal, which covaried with the standard deviation or variance of the magnitude of juice rewards and occurred separately from reward value coding. Human imaging studies identified similarly distinct risk signals for monetary rewards in the striatum and orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), thus fulfilling a requirement for the mean variance approach of economic decision theory. The orbitofrontal risk signal covaried with individual risk attitudes, possibly explaining individual differences in risk perception and risky decision making. Ambiguous gambles with incomplete probabilistic information induced stronger brain signals than risky gambles in OFC and amygdala, suggesting that the brain's reward system signals the partial lack of information. The brain can use the uncertainty signals to assess the uncertainty of rewards, influence learning, modulate the value of uncertain rewards and make appropriate behavioural choices between only partly known options.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
136 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Musical rhythm, consisting of apparently abstract intervals of accented temporal events, has a remarkable capacity to move our minds and bodies. How does the cognitive system enable our experiences of rhythmically complex music? In this paper, we describe some common forms of rhythmic complexity in music and propose the theory of predictive coding (PC) as a framework for understanding how rhythm and rhythmic complexity are processed in the brain. We also consider why we feel so compelled by rhythmic tension in music. First, we consider theories of rhythm and meter perception, which provide hierarchical and computational approaches to modeling. Second, we present the theory of PC, which posits a hierarchical organization of brain responses reflecting fundamental, survival-related mechanisms associated with predicting future events. According to this theory, perception and learning is manifested through the brain's Bayesian minimization of the error between the input to the brain and the brain's prior expectations. Third, we develop a PC model of musical rhythm, in which rhythm perception is conceptualized as an interaction between what is heard ("rhythm") and the brain's anticipatory structuring of music ("meter"). Finally, we review empirical studies of the neural and behavioral effects of syncopation, polyrhythm and groove, and propose how these studies can be seen as special cases of the PC theory. We argue that musical rhythm exploits the brain's general principles of prediction and propose that pleasure and desire for sensorimotor synchronization from musical rhythm may be a result of such mechanisms.
    Frontiers in Psychology 10/2014; 5:1111. · 2.80 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Patients with schizophrenia display metacognitive impairments, such as hasty decision-making during probabilistic reasoning - the "jumping to conclusion" bias (JTC). Our recent fMRI study revealed reduced activations in the right ventral striatum (VS) and the ventral tegmental area (VTA) to be associated with decision-making in patients with schizophrenia. It is unclear whether these functional alterations occur in the at-risk mental state (ARMS). METHODS: We administered the classical beads task and fMRI among ARMS patients and healthy controls matched for age, sex, education and premorbid verbal intelligence. None of the ARMS patients was treated with antipsychotics. Both tasks request probabilistic decisions after a variable amount of stimuli. We evaluated activation during decision-making under certainty versus uncertainty and the process of final decision-making. RESULTS: We included 24 AMRS patients and 24 controls in our study. Compared with controls, ARMS patients tended to draw fewer beads and showed significantly more JTC bias in the classical beads task, mirroring findings in patients with schizophrenia. During fMRI, ARMS patients did not demonstrate JTC bias on the behavioural level, but showed a significant hypoactivation in the right VS during the decision stage. LIMITATIONS: Owing to the cross-sectional design of the study, results are constrained to a better insight into the neurobiology of risk constellations, but not prepsychotic stages. Nine of the ARMS patients were treated with antidepressants and/or lorazepam. CONCLUSION: As in patients with schizophrenia, a striatal hypoactivation was found in ARMS patients. Confounding effects of antipsychotic medication can be excluded. Our findings indicate that error prediction signalling and reward anticipation may be linked to striatal dysfunction during prodromal stages and should be examined for their utility in predicting transition risk.
    Journal of psychiatry & neuroscience: JPN 01/2015; 40(1):140. · 7.49 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Most decisions made in real-life situations are risky because they are associated with possible negative consequences. Current models of decision-making postulate that the occasional, unpredictable absence of reward that may result from free choice is a negative consequence interpreted as risk by organisms in laboratory situations. I argue that such a view is difficult to justify because, in most experimental paradigms, reward omission does not represent a cost for the decision maker. Risk only exists when unpredictability may cause a potential loss of own limited resources, whether energetic, social, financial, and so on. Thus the experimental methodologies used to test humans and non-humans relative to risk-taking seem to be limited to studying the effects of reward uncertainty in the absence of true decision cost. This may have important implications for the conclusions that can be drawn with respect to the neurobehavioural determinants of risk-taking in real-life situations.
    Behavioural brain research 03/2015; 280:119-127. · 3.22 Impact Factor

Full-text (2 Sources)

Download
35 Downloads
Available from
Jun 1, 2014