1. Neuroscience
Download icon

DYT1 dystonia increases risk taking in humans

  1. David Arkadir
  2. Angela Radulescu
  3. Deborah Raymond
  4. Naomi Lunar
  5. Susan B Bressman
  6. Pietro Mazzoni
  7. Yael Niv  Is a corresponding author
  1. Hadassah Medical Center and the Hebrew University, Israel
  2. Princeton University, United States
  3. Beth Israel Medical Center, United States
  4. Columbia University, United States
Short Report
  • Cited 6
  • Views 1,281
  • Annotations
Cite this article as: eLife 2016;5:e14155 doi: 10.7554/eLife.14155

Abstract

It has been difficult to link synaptic modification to overt behavioral changes. Rodent models of DYT1 dystonia, a single-mutation motor disorder, demonstrate increased long-term potentiation and decreased long-term depression in corticostriatal synapses. Computationally, such asymmetric learning predicts risk taking in probabilistic tasks. Here we demonstrate abnormal risk taking in DYT1 dystonia patients, which is correlated with disease severity, thereby supporting striatal plasticity in shaping choice behavior in humans.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. David Arkadir

    Department of Neurology, Hadassah Medical Center, Hadassah Medical Center and the Hebrew University, Jerusalem, Israel
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Angela Radulescu

    Psychology Department, Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Deborah Raymond

    Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Naomi Lunar

    Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  5. Susan B Bressman

    Department of Neurology, Beth Israel Medical Center, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  6. Pietro Mazzoni

    The Neurological Institute, Columbia University, New York, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  7. Yael Niv

    Psychology Department, Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    yael@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.

Ethics

Human subjects: All participants gave informed consent and the study was approved by the Institutional Review Boards of Columbia University, Beth Israel Medical Center, and Princeton University.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Rui M Costa, Fundação Champalimaud, Portugal

Publication history

  1. Received: January 2, 2016
  2. Accepted: May 28, 2016
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: June 1, 2016 (version 1)
  4. Accepted Manuscript updated: June 2, 2016 (version 2)
  5. Version of Record published: July 19, 2016 (version 3)

Copyright

© 2016, Arkadir et al.

This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License permitting unrestricted use and redistribution provided that the original author and source are credited.

Metrics

  • 1,281
    Page views
  • 323
    Downloads
  • 6
    Citations

Article citation count generated by polling the highest count across the following sources: Crossref, Scopus, PubMed Central.

Download links

A two-part list of links to download the article, or parts of the article, in various formats.

Downloads (link to download the article as PDF)

Download citations (links to download the citations from this article in formats compatible with various reference manager tools)

Open citations (links to open the citations from this article in various online reference manager services)

Further reading

    1. Computational and Systems Biology
    2. Neuroscience
    Douglas G Lee, Jean Daunizeau
    Research Article Updated

    Why do we sometimes opt for actions or items that we do not value the most? Under current neurocomputational theories, such preference reversals are typically interpreted in terms of errors that arise from the unreliable signaling of value to brain decision systems. But, an alternative explanation is that people may change their mind because they are reassessing the value of alternative options while pondering the decision. So, why do we carefully ponder some decisions, but not others? In this work, we derive a computational model of the metacognitive control of decisions or MCD. In brief, we assume that fast and automatic processes first provide initial (and largely uncertain) representations of options' values, yielding prior estimates of decision difficulty. These uncertain value representations are then refined by deploying cognitive (e.g., attentional, mnesic) resources, the allocation of which is controlled by an effort-confidence tradeoff. Importantly, the anticipated benefit of allocating resources varies in a decision-by-decision manner according to the prior estimate of decision difficulty. The ensuing MCD model predicts response time, subjective feeling of effort, choice confidence, changes of mind, as well as choice-induced preference change and certainty gain. We test these predictions in a systematic manner, using a dedicated behavioral paradigm. Our results provide a quantitative link between mental effort, choice confidence, and preference reversals, which could inform interpretations of related neuroimaging findings.

    1. Neuroscience
    Rundong Jiang et al.
    Research Article

    The ventral visual pathway is crucially involved in integrating low-level visual features into complex representations for objects and scenes. At an intermediate stage of the ventral visual pathway, V4 plays a crucial role in supporting this transformation. Many V4 neurons are selective for shape segments like curves and corners, however it remains unclear whether these neurons are organized into clustered functional domains, a structural motif common across other visual cortices. Using two-photon calcium imaging in awake macaques, we confirmed and localized cortical domains selective for curves or corners in V4. Single-cell resolution imaging confirmed that curve or corner selective neurons were spatially clustered into such domains. When tested with hexagonal-segment stimuli, we find that stimulus smoothness is the cardinal difference between curve and corner selectivity in V4. Combining cortical population responses with single neuron analysis, our results reveal that curves and corners are encoded by neurons clustered into functional domains in V4. This functionally-specific population architecture bridges the gap between the early and late cortices of the ventral pathway and may serve to facilitate complex object recognition.