Reward prediction error does not explain movement selectivity in DMS-projecting dopamine neurons

Abstract

Although midbrain dopamine (DA) neurons have been thought to primarily encode reward prediction error (RPE), recent studies have also found movement-related DAergic signals. For example, we recently reported that DA neurons in mice projecting to dorsomedial striatum are modulated by choices contralateral to the recording side. Here, we introduce, and ultimately reject, a candidate resolution for the puzzling RPE vs movement dichotomy, by showing how seemingly movement-related activity might be explained by an action-specific RPE. By considering both choice and RPE on a trial-by-trial basis, we find that DA signals are modulated by contralateral choice in a manner that is distinct from RPE, implying that choice encoding is better explained by movement direction. This fundamental separation between RPE and movement encoding may help shed light on the diversity of functions and dysfunctions of the DA system.

Data availability

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in the manuscript and supporting files.

Article and author information

Author details

  1. Rachel S Lee

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  2. Marcelo G Mattar

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  3. Nathan F Parker

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
  4. Ilana B Witten

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    iwitten@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0003-0548-2160
  5. Nathaniel D Daw

    Princeton Neuroscience Institute, Princeton University, Princeton, United States
    For correspondence
    ndaw@princeton.edu
    Competing interests
    The authors declare that no competing interests exist.
    ORCID icon "This ORCID iD identifies the author of this article:" 0000-0001-5029-1430

Funding

National Institute for Health Research (5R01MH106689-02)

  • Ilana B Witten

New York Stem Cell Foundation (Robertson Investigator)

  • Ilana B Witten

Army Research Office (W911NF-16-1-0474)

  • Nathaniel D Daw

Army Research Office (W911NF-17-1-0554)

  • Ilana B Witten

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

Copyright

© 2019, Lee 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

  • 6,867
    views
  • 755
    downloads
  • 61
    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. Rachel S Lee
  2. Marcelo G Mattar
  3. Nathan F Parker
  4. Ilana B Witten
  5. Nathaniel D Daw
(2019)
Reward prediction error does not explain movement selectivity in DMS-projecting dopamine neurons
eLife 8:e42992.
https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42992

Share this article

https://doi.org/10.7554/eLife.42992

Further reading

    1. Neuroscience
    Yafen Li, Yixuan Lin ... Antao Chen
    Research Article

    Concurrent verbal working memory task can eliminate the color-word Stroop effect. Previous research, based on specific and limited resources, suggested that the disappearance of the conflict effect was due to the memory information preempting the resources for distractors. However, it remains unclear which particular stage of Stroop conflict processing is influenced by working memory loads. In this study, electroencephalography (EEG) recordings with event-related potential (ERP) analyses, time-frequency analyses, multivariate pattern analyses (MVPAs), and representational similarity analyses (RSAs) were applied to provide an in-depth investigation of the aforementioned issue. Subjects were required to complete the single task (the classical manual color-word Stroop task) and the dual task (the Sternberg working memory task combined with the Stroop task), respectively. Behaviorally, the results indicated that the Stroop effect was eliminated in the dual-task condition. The EEG results showed that the concurrent working memory task did not modulate the P1, N450, and alpha bands. However, it modulated the sustained potential (SP), late theta (740–820 ms), and beta (920–1040 ms) power, showing no difference between congruent and incongruent trials in the dual-task condition but significant difference in the single-task condition. Importantly, the RSA results revealed that the neural activation pattern of the late theta was similar to the response interaction pattern. Together, these findings implied that the concurrent working memory task eliminated the Stroop effect through disrupting stimulus-response mapping.

    1. Neuroscience
    Samuel Noorman, Timo Stein ... Simon van Gaal
    Research Article

    This study investigates failures in conscious access resulting from either weak sensory input (perceptual impairments) or unattended input (attentional impairments). Participants viewed a Kanizsa stimulus with or without an illusory triangle within a rapid serial visual presentation of distractor stimuli. We designed a novel Kanizsa stimulus that contained additional ancillary features of different complexity (local contrast and collinearity) that were independently manipulated. Perceptual performance on the Kanizsa stimulus (presence vs. absence of an illusion) was equated between the perceptual (masking) and attentional (attentional blink) manipulation to circumvent common confounds related to conditional differences in task performance. We trained and tested classifiers on electroencephalogram (EEG) data to reflect the processing of specific stimulus features, with increasing levels of complexity. We show that late stages of processing (~200–250 ms), reflecting the integration of complex stimulus features (collinearity, illusory triangle), were impaired by masking but spared by the attentional blink. In contrast, decoding of local contrast (the spatial arrangement of stimulus features) was observed early in time (~80 ms) and was left largely unaffected by either manipulation. These results replicate previous work showing that feedforward processing is largely preserved under both perceptual and attentional impairments. Crucially, however, under matched levels of performance, only attentional impairments left the processing of more complex visual features relatively intact, likely related to spared lateral and local feedback processes during inattention. These findings reveal distinct neural mechanisms associated with perceptual and attentional impairments and thus contribute to a comprehensive understanding of distinct neural stages leading to conscious access.