Neuronal correlates of goal-based motor selection in the prefrontal cortex

Science

Volumn 301, Issue 5630, 2003, Pages 229-232

  Matsumoto, Kenji ^a   Suzuki, Wataru ^a   Tanaka, Keiji ^a  

^a RIKEN BRAIN SCIENCE INSTITUTE   (Japan)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

BEHAVIORAL RESEARCH; VISION;

PREFRONTAL CORTEX;

NEUROLOGY;

SELECTION; VISUAL CUE;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ARTICLE; ASSOCIATION; CELL ACTIVATION; CELL ACTIVITY; CONTROLLED STUDY; CORRELATION ANALYSIS; MONKEY; MOTOR ACTIVITY; NERVE CELL; NONHUMAN; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REWARD; STIMULUS RESPONSE; TASK PERFORMANCE; VISUOMOTOR COORDINATION; ACTION POTENTIAL; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMAL; BRAIN MAPPING; CONDITIONING; DECISION MAKING; HAPLORHINI; LEARNING; MEMORY; MOTIVATION; PHYSIOLOGY; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE;

ANIMALIA;

ACTION POTENTIALS; ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE; ANIMALS; BRAIN MAPPING; CONDITIONING (PSYCHOLOGY); CUES; DECISION MAKING; GOALS; HAPLORHINI; LEARNING; MEMORY; NEURONS; PREFRONTAL CORTEX; PSYCHOMOTOR PERFORMANCE; REWARD;

EID: 0038491288     PISSN: 00368075     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1126/science.1084204     Document Type: Article

References (40)

1. J. Duncan, in The Cognitive Neurosciences, M. S. Gazzaniga, E. Bizzi, Eds. (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1995), pp. 721-733.
2. W. Schultz, Nature Rev. Neurosci. 1, 199 (2000).
3. H. Niki, M. Watanabe, Brain Res. 171, 213 (1979).
4. M. Shidara, B. J. Richmond, Science 296, 1709 (2002).
5. M. Watanabe, Exp. Brain Res. 80, 296 (1990).
6. M. Watanabe, Nature 382, 629 (1996).
7. M. I. Leon, M. N. Shadlen, Neuron 24, 415 (1999).
8. M. Watanabe, K. Hikosaka, M. Sakagami, S. Shirakawa, J. Neurosci. 22, 2391 (2002).
9. S. Kobayashi, J. Lauwereyns, M. Koizumi, M. Sakagami, O. Hikosaka, J. Neurophysiol. 87, 1488 (2002).
10. E. T. Rolls, H. D. Critchley, R. Mason, E. A. Wakeman, J. Neurophysiol. 75, 1970 (1996).
11. L. Tremblay, W. Schultz, Nature 398, 704 (1999).
12. G. Thut et al., Neuroreport 8, 1225 (1997).
13. H. D. Critchley, C. J. Mathias, R. J. Dolan, Neuron 29, 537 (2001).
14. J. O'Doherty, M. L. Kringelbach, J. Hornak, C. Andrews, E. T. Rolls, Nature Neurosci. 4, 95 (2001).
15. G. Bush et al., Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U.S.A. 99, 523 (2002).
16. P. S. Goldman-Rakic, Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci. 769, 71 (1995).
17. J. M. Fuster, Exp. Brain Res. 133, 66 (2000).
18. E. Miller, Nature Rev. Neurosci. 1, 59 (2000).
19. S. Funahashi, Neurosci. Res. 39, 147 (2001).
20. A. W. MacDonald 3rd, J. D. Cohen, V. A. Stenger, C. S. Carter, Science 288, 1835 (2000).
21. M. M. Botvinick, T. S. Braver, D. M. Barch, C. S. Carter, J. D. Cohen, Psychol. Rev. 108, 624 (2001).
22. Methods are available as supporting material on Science Online.
23. It is known in the field of behavioral science that animals learn different motor responses more quickly when different rewards are provided for each motor response with a fixed motor-reward contingency, compared with when the same reward is provided (37-39). It has been suggested that animals use the anticipated reward and the memory of motor-reward contingency in their motor selection when such information is available. This phenomenon is called the Differential Outcomes Effect.
24. Reward + and reward - activated 18 and 17 cells in the medial PFC, and 2 and 9 cells in the lateral PFC, respectively.
25. Reward + and reward - activated 14 and 10 cells in the medial PFC, and 5 and 6 cells in the lateral PFC, respectively.
26. Among the cells that showed significant motor-reward dependency during either the cue or delay period or both, only one medial PFC cell showed motor-reward-dependency in the spontaneous firing rate. Moreover, when we removed correction trials after error trials, none of the cells showed significant motor-reward dependency in spontaneous activity. The correction trials should be removed from the analysis, because the same visual cue was repeatedly presented and, therefore, the monkeys could anticipate the condition even before the cue presentation in these correction trials.
27. The number of cells that fired under GO-reward +, GO-reward -, NG-reward +, and NG-reward - conditions was four, five, three, and four cells, respectively, in the early-cue window, and five, eight, six, and seven cells in the latest delay window. Thus, the activity of this subpopulation of medial PFC cells is sufficient to specify the linkage between motor responses and reward conditions in any combination.
28. The number of lateral PFC cells that fired under GO-reward +, GO-reward -, NG-reward +, and NG-reward - conditions was one, zero, two and four, respectively.
29. The regional difference in the cue period activity can also be demonstrated in the distribution of discharge difference due to motor factor (fig. S2). Those of lateral PFC cells were significantly smaller than those of medial PFC cells (P < 0.01). The medial PFC cells with large motor discharge differences had also large discharge differences due to reward factor (fig. S4). The delayed development of motor-reward combinatorial representation in the lateral PFC can also be observed in the time course of the averaged discharge difference to two motor conditions (fig. S3).
30. The mean discharge rate in individual VMR conditions was averaged within each of the two groups of conditions that make the concerned contrast (e.g., GO versus NG, or GO-reward + versus all others), and the difference between the two average values was taken to represent the discharge difference.
31. Discussion of paradigm differences between the present study and others is available in the supporting online material (SOM) Text.
32. K. A. Hadland, M. F. Rushworth, D. Gaffan, R. E. Passingham, J. Neurophysiol. 89, 1161 (2003).
33. E. Procyk, Y. L. Tanaka, J. P. Joseph, Nature Neurosci. 3, 502 (2000).
34. K. Shima, J. Tanji, Science 282, 1335 (1998).
35. V. van Veen, J. D. Cohen, M. M. Botvinick, V. A. Stenger, C. S. Carter, Neuroimage 14, 1302 (2001).
36. Possible role of the basal ganglia in goal-based action selection is discussed in SOM Text.
37. G. B. Peterson, M. A. Trapold, Learning Motivation 11, 267 (1980).
38. J. B. Overmier, D. Linwick, Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 36, 173 (2001).
39. L. M. Savage, Integr. Physiol. Behav. Sci. 36, 182 (2001).
40. We thank N. Ichinohe, K. Shirosawa, M. Bellinger, A. E. Knight, and Y. Abe for histological processing of the brain; H. Nakahara and M. Matsumoto for discussion; R. A. Waggoner for magnetic resonance imaging of the brain; M. Tanifuji for improving the electrical circuit; R. Hasegawa for providing data processing software; I. Chou for improving the English; and H. Niki, M. N. Shadlen, R. C. O'Reilly, and Y. Munakata for critical reading of an early manuscript.