↓ Skip to main content

The Dopamine Prediction Error: Contributions to Associative Models of Reward Learning

Overview of attention for article published in Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (82nd percentile)
  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (72nd percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
19 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
video
1 YouTube creator

Citations

dimensions_citation
77 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
291 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
The Dopamine Prediction Error: Contributions to Associative Models of Reward Learning
Published in
Frontiers in Psychology, February 2017
DOI 10.3389/fpsyg.2017.00244
Pubmed ID
Authors

Helen M. Nasser, Donna J. Calu, Geoffrey Schoenbaum, Melissa J. Sharpe

Abstract

Phasic activity of midbrain dopamine neurons is currently thought to encapsulate the prediction-error signal described in Sutton and Barto's (1981) model-free reinforcement learning algorithm. This phasic signal is thought to contain information about the quantitative value of reward, which transfers to the reward-predictive cue after learning. This is argued to endow the reward-predictive cue with the value inherent in the reward, motivating behavior toward cues signaling the presence of reward. Yet theoretical and empirical research has implicated prediction-error signaling in learning that extends far beyond a transfer of quantitative value to a reward-predictive cue. Here, we review the research which demonstrates the complexity of how dopaminergic prediction errors facilitate learning. After briefly discussing the literature demonstrating that phasic dopaminergic signals can act in the manner described by Sutton and Barto (1981), we consider how these signals may also influence attentional processing across multiple attentional systems in distinct brain circuits. Then, we discuss how prediction errors encode and promote the development of context-specific associations between cues and rewards. Finally, we consider recent evidence that shows dopaminergic activity contains information about causal relationships between cues and rewards that reflect information garnered from rich associative models of the world that can be adapted in the absence of direct experience. In discussing this research we hope to support the expansion of how dopaminergic prediction errors are thought to contribute to the learning process beyond the traditional concept of transferring quantitative value.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 19 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 291 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Belgium 1 <1%
Unknown 290 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 65 22%
Researcher 42 14%
Student > Bachelor 37 13%
Student > Master 32 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 28 10%
Other 28 10%
Unknown 59 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Neuroscience 102 35%
Psychology 58 20%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 25 9%
Medicine and Dentistry 12 4%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 8 3%
Other 15 5%
Unknown 71 24%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 03 June 2020.
All research outputs
#3,200,506
of 25,362,278 outputs
Outputs from Frontiers in Psychology
#6,115
of 34,397 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#56,508
of 324,217 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Frontiers in Psychology
#134
of 488 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,362,278 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 87th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 34,397 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 324,217 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 82% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 488 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 72% of its contemporaries.