Preconditioned cues have no value

  1. Melissa Sharpe  Is a corresponding author
  2. Hannah Batchelor
  3. Geoffrey Schoenbaum  Is a corresponding author
  1. NIDA Intramural Research Program, United States

Abstract

Sensory preconditioning has been used to implicate midbrain dopamine in model-based learning, contradicting the view that dopamine transients reflect model-free value. However, it has been suggested that model-free value might accrue directly to the preconditioned cue through mediated learning. Here, building on previous work (Sadacca et al., 2016), we address this question by testing whether a preconditioned cue will support conditioned reinforcement in rats. We found that while both directly conditioned and second-order conditioned cues supported robust conditioned reinforcement, a preconditioned cue did not. These data show that the preconditioned cue in our procedure does not directly accrue model-free value and further suggest that the cue may not necessarily access value even indirectly in a model-based manner. If so, then phasic response of dopamine neurons to cues in this setting cannot be described as signaling errors in predicting value.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Melissa Sharpe

    NIDA Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, United States
    For correspondence
    melissa.sharpe@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  2. Hannah Batchelor

    NIDA Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, United States
    Competing interests
    No competing interests declared.
  3. Geoffrey Schoenbaum

    NIDA Intramural Research Program, Baltimore, United States
    For correspondence
    geoffrey.schoenbaum@nih.gov
    Competing interests
    Geoffrey Schoenbaum, Reviewing editor, eLife.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-8180-0701

Funding

NIDA-IRP (zia-da000587)

  • Geoffrey Schoenbaum

The funders had no role in study design, data collection and interpretation, or the decision to submit the work for publication.

Reviewing Editor

  1. Timothy E Behrens, University of Oxford,, United Kingdom

Ethics

Animal experimentation: This study was performed in strict accordance with the recommendations in the Guide for the Care and Use of Laboratory Animals of the National Institutes of Health. All of the animals were handled according to approved institutional animal care and use committee (IACUC) protocols (#15-CNRB-108) of the NIDA-IRP. The protocol was approved by the ACUC at the IRP (Permit Number: A4149-01). Every effort was made to minimize suffering.

Version history

  1. Received: May 5, 2017
  2. Accepted: September 18, 2017
  3. Accepted Manuscript published: September 19, 2017 (version 1)
  4. Version of Record published: September 28, 2017 (version 2)

Copyright

This is an open-access article, free of all copyright, and may be freely reproduced, distributed, transmitted, modified, built upon, or otherwise used by anyone for any lawful purpose. The work is made available under the Creative Commons CC0 public domain dedication.

Metrics

  • 2,239
    views
  • 344
    downloads
  • 37
    citations

Views, downloads and citations are aggregated across all versions of this paper published by eLife.

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)

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

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

  1. Melissa Sharpe
  2. Hannah Batchelor
  3. Geoffrey Schoenbaum
(2017)
Preconditioned cues have no value
eLife 6:e28362.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28362

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.28362

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Brian F Sadacca, Joshua L Jones, Geoffrey Schoenbaum
    Short Report Updated

    Midbrain dopamine neurons have been proposed to signal reward prediction errors as defined in temporal difference (TD) learning algorithms. While these models have been extremely powerful in interpreting dopamine activity, they typically do not use value derived through inference in computing errors. This is important because much real world behavior – and thus many opportunities for error-driven learning – is based on such predictions. Here, we show that error-signaling rat dopamine neurons respond to the inferred, model-based value of cues that have not been paired with reward and do so in the same framework as they track the putative cached value of cues previously paired with reward. This suggests that dopamine neurons access a wider variety of information than contemplated by standard TD models and that, while their firing conforms to predictions of TD models in some cases, they may not be restricted to signaling errors from TD predictions.

    1. Neuroscience
    Islam Faress, Valentina Khalil ... Sadegh Nabavi
    Research Article

    The dominant models of learning and memory, such as Hebbian plasticity, propose that experiences are transformed into memories through input-specific synaptic plasticity at the time of learning. However, synaptic plasticity is neither strictly input-specific nor restricted to the time of its induction. The impact of such forms of non-Hebbian plasticity on memory has been difficult to test, and hence poorly understood. Here, we demonstrate that synaptic manipulations can deviate from the Hebbian model of learning, yet produce a lasting memory. First, we established a weak associative conditioning protocol in mice, where optogenetic stimulation of sensory thalamic input to the amygdala was paired with a footshock, but no detectable memory was formed. However, when the same input was potentiated minutes before or after, or even 24 hr later, the associative experience was converted into a lasting memory. Importantly, potentiating an independent input to the amygdala minutes but not 24 hr after the pairing produced a lasting memory. Thus, our findings suggest that the process of transformation of a transient experience into a memory is neither restricted to the time of the experience nor to the synapses triggered by it; instead, it can be influenced by past and future events.