Adaptation of Dopamine Neurons' Mismatch Sensitivity Is not Compatible With Reinforcement Learning Theory

Recent electrophysical data inspired the claim that dopaminergic neurons adapt their mismatch sensitivities to reflect variances of expected rewards. This contradicts reward prediction error theory and most basal ganglia models. Application of learning principles points to a testable alternative interpretation-of the same data-that is compatible with existing theory.

A Neural Network of Adaptively Timed Reinforcement Learning and Hippocampal Dynamics

A neural model is described of how adaptively timed reinforcement learning occurs. The adaptive timing circuit is suggested to exist in the hippocampus, and to involve convergence of dentate granule cells on CA3 pyramidal cells, and NMDA receptors. This circuit forms part of a model neural system for the coordinated control of recognition learning, reinforcement learning, and motor learning, whose properties clarify how an animal can learn to acquire a delayed reward. Behavioral and neural data are summarized in support of each processing stage of the system. The relevant anatomical sites are in thalamus, neocortex, hippocampus, hypothalamus, amygdala, and cerebellum. Cerebellar influences on motor learning are distinguished from hippocampal influences on adaptive timing of reinforcement learning. The model simulates how damage to the hippocampal formation disrupts adaptive timing, eliminates attentional blocking, and causes symptoms of medial temporal amnesia. It suggests how normal acquisition of subcortical emotional conditioning can occur after cortical ablation, even though extinction of emotional conditioning is retarded by cortical ablation. The model simulates how increasing the duration of an unconditioned stimulus increases the amplitude of emotional conditioning, but does not change adaptive timing; and how an increase in the intensity of a conditioned stimulus "speeds up the clock", but an increase in the intensity of an unconditioned stimulus does not. Computer simulations of the model fit parametric conditioning data, including a Weber law property and an inverted U property. Both primary and secondary adaptively timed conditioning are simulated, as are data concerning conditioning using multiple interstimulus intervals (ISIs), gradually or abruptly changing ISis, partial reinforcement, and multiple stimuli that lead to time-averaging of responses. Neurobiologically testable predictions are made to facilitate further tests of the model.