Literature DB >> 33166195

Separable Influences of Reward on Visual Processing and Choice.

Alireza Soltani1, Mohsen Rakhshan1, Robert J Schafer2, Brittany E Burrows2, Tirin Moore2.   

Abstract

Primate vision is characterized by constant, sequential processing and selection of visual targets to fixate. Although expected reward is known to influence both processing and selection of visual targets, similarities and differences between these effects remain unclear mainly because they have been measured in separate tasks. Using a novel paradigm, we simultaneously measured the effects of reward outcomes and expected reward on target selection and sensitivity to visual motion in monkeys. Monkeys freely chose between two visual targets and received a juice reward with varying probability for eye movements made to either of them. Targets were stationary apertures of drifting gratings, causing the end points of eye movements to these targets to be systematically biased in the direction of motion. We used this motion-induced bias as a measure of sensitivity to visual motion on each trial. We then performed different analyses to explore effects of objective and subjective reward values on choice and sensitivity to visual motion to find similarities and differences between reward effects on these two processes. Specifically, we used different reinforcement learning models to fit choice behavior and estimate subjective reward values based on the integration of reward outcomes over multiple trials. Moreover, to compare the effects of subjective reward value on choice and sensitivity to motion directly, we considered correlations between each of these variables and integrated reward outcomes on a wide range of timescales. We found that, in addition to choice, sensitivity to visual motion was also influenced by subjective reward value, although the motion was irrelevant for receiving reward. Unlike choice, however, sensitivity to visual motion was not affected by objective measures of reward value. Moreover, choice was determined by the difference in subjective reward values of the two options, whereas sensitivity to motion was influenced by the sum of values. Finally, models that best predicted visual processing and choice used sets of estimated reward values based on different types of reward integration and timescales. Together, our results demonstrate separable influences of reward on visual processing and choice, and point to the presence of multiple brain circuits for the integration of reward outcomes.

Year:  2020        PMID: 33166195      PMCID: PMC8240750          DOI: 10.1162/jocn_a_01647

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Cogn Neurosci        ISSN: 0898-929X            Impact factor:   3.225


  63 in total

1.  Dissociated neural representations of intensity and valence in human olfaction.

Authors:  A K Anderson; K Christoff; I Stappen; D Panitz; D G Ghahremani; G Glover; J D E Gabrieli; N Sobel
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 24.884

2.  Separate brain regions code for salience vs. valence during reward prediction in humans.

Authors:  Jimmy Jensen; Andrew J Smith; Matthäus Willeit; Adrian P Crawley; David J Mikulis; Irina Vitcu; Shitij Kapur
Journal:  Hum Brain Mapp       Date:  2007-04       Impact factor: 5.038

3.  Learning to attend and to ignore is a matter of gains and losses.

Authors:  Chiara Della Libera; Leonardo Chelazzi
Journal:  Psychol Sci       Date:  2009-05-05

4.  Vernier acuity with stationary moving Gabors.

Authors:  R L De Valois; K K De Valois
Journal:  Vision Res       Date:  1991       Impact factor: 1.886

Review 5.  Prefrontal contributions to visual selective attention.

Authors:  Ryan F Squire; Behrad Noudoost; Robert J Schafer; Tirin Moore
Journal:  Annu Rev Neurosci       Date:  2013-07-08       Impact factor: 12.449

Review 6.  A value-driven mechanism of attentional selection.

Authors:  Brian A Anderson
Journal:  J Vis       Date:  2013-04-15       Impact factor: 2.240

7.  Neuronal Mechanisms of Visual Attention.

Authors:  John H R Maunsell
Journal:  Annu Rev Vis Sci       Date:  2015-11-24       Impact factor: 6.422

8.  Amygdala and Ventral Striatum Make Distinct Contributions to Reinforcement Learning.

Authors:  Vincent D Costa; Olga Dal Monte; Daniel R Lucas; Elisabeth A Murray; Bruno B Averbeck
Journal:  Neuron       Date:  2016-10-06       Impact factor: 17.173

9.  Dynamic routing of task-relevant signals for decision making in dorsolateral prefrontal cortex.

Authors:  Christopher H Donahue; Daeyeol Lee
Journal:  Nat Neurosci       Date:  2015-01-12       Impact factor: 24.884

10.  Feature-based learning improves adaptability without compromising precision.

Authors:  Shiva Farashahi; Katherine Rowe; Zohra Aslami; Daeyeol Lee; Alireza Soltani
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2017-11-24       Impact factor: 14.919

View more
  1 in total

1.  Entropy-based metrics for predicting choice behavior based on local response to reward.

Authors:  Ethan Trepka; Mehran Spitmaan; Bilal A Bari; Vincent D Costa; Jeremiah Y Cohen; Alireza Soltani
Journal:  Nat Commun       Date:  2021-11-12       Impact factor: 17.694

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.