Valence-dependent dopaminergic modulation during reversal learning in Parkinson’s disease: A neurocomputational approach
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Reinforcement learning, crucial for behavior in dynamic environments, is driven by rewards and punishments, modulated by dopamine (DA) changes. This study explores the dopaminergic system's influence on learning, particularly in Parkinson's disease (PD), where medication leads to impaired adaptability. Highlighting the role of tonic DA in signaling the valence of actions, this research investigates how DA affects response vigor and decision-making in PD. DA not only influences reward and punishment learning but also indicates the cognitive effort level and risk propensity in actions, which are essential for understanding and managing PD symptoms. In this work, we adapt our existing neurocomputational model of basal ganglia (BG) to simulate two reversal learning tasks proposed by Cools et al. We first optimized a Hebb rule for both probabilistic and deterministic reversal learning, conducted a sensitivity analysis (SA) on parameters related to DA effect, and compared performances between three groups: PD-ON, PD-OFF, and control subjects. In our deterministic task simulation, we explored switch error rates after unexpected task switches and found a U-shaped relationship between tonic DA levels and switch error frequency. Through SA, we classify these three groups. Then, assuming that the valence of the stimulus affects the tonic levels of DA, we were able to reproduce the results by Cools et al. As for the probabilistic task simulation, our results are in line with clinical data, showing similar trends with PD-ON, characterized by higher tonic DA levels that are correlated with increased difficulty in both acquisition and reversal tasks. Our study proposes a new hypothesis: valence, signaled by tonic DA levels, influences learning in PD, confirming the uncorrelation between phasic and tonic DA changes. This hypothesis challenges existing paradigms and opens new avenues for understanding cognitive processes in PD, particularly in reversal learning tasks.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".