4.7 Article

Distinct Contributions of Ventromedial and Dorsolateral Subregions of the Human Substantia Nigra to Appetitive and Aversive Learning

期刊

JOURNAL OF NEUROSCIENCE
卷 35, 期 42, 页码 14220-14233

出版社

SOC NEUROSCIENCE
DOI: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2277-15.2015

关键词

appetitive learning; aversive learning; brainstem; dopaminergic midbrain; fMRI

资金

  1. National Institute of Mental Health Caltech Conte Center for the Neurobiology of Social Decision Making

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The role of neurons in the substantia nigra (SN) and ventral tegmental area (VTA) of the midbrain in contributing to the elicitation of reward prediction errors during appetitive learning has been well established. Less is known about the differential contribution of these midbrain regions to appetitive versus aversive learning, especially in humans. Here we scanned human participants with high-resolution fMRI focused on the SN and VTA while they participated in a sequential Pavlovian conditioning paradigm involving an appetitive outcome (a pleasant juice), as well as an aversive outcome (an unpleasant bitter and salty flavor). We found a degree of regional specialization within the SN: Whereas a region of ventromedial SN correlated with a temporal difference reward prediction error during appetitive Pavlovian learning, a dorsolateral area correlated instead with an aversive expected value signal in response to the most distal cue, and to a reward prediction error in response to the most proximal cue to the aversive outcome. Furthermore, participants' affective reactions to both the appetitive and aversive conditioned stimuli more than 1 year after the fMRI experiment was conducted correlated with activation in the ventromedial and dorsolateral SN obtained during the experiment, respectively. These findings suggest that, whereas the human ventromedial SN contributes to long-term learning about rewards, the dorsolateral SN may be particularly important for long-term learning in aversive contexts.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据