Author response: Acetylcholine modulates prefrontal outcome coding during threat learning under uncertainty
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Outcomes can vary even when choices are repeated. Such ambiguity necessitates adjusting how much to learn from each outcome by tracking its variability. The medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC) has been reported to signal the expected outcome and its discrepancy from the actual outcome (prediction error), two variables essential for controlling the learning rate. However, the source of signals that shape these coding properties remains unknown. Here, we investigated the contribution of cholinergic projections from the basal forebrain because they carry precisely timed signals about outcomes. One-photon calcium imaging revealed that as mice learned different probabilities of threat occurrence on two paths, some mPFC cells responded to threats on one of the paths, while other cells gained responses to threat omission. These threat- and omission-evoked responses were scaled to the unexpectedness of outcomes, some exhibiting a reversal in response direction when encountering surprising threats as opposed to surprising omissions. This selectivity for signed prediction errors was enhanced by optogenetic stimulation of local cholinergic terminals during threats. The enhanced threat-evoked cholinergic signals also made mice erroneously abandon the correct choice after a single threat that violated expectations, thereby decoupling their path choice from the history of threat occurrence on each path. Thus, acetylcholine modulates the encoding of surprising outcomes in the mPFC to control how much they dictate future decisions.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.006 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.042 | 0.011 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".