Back

Valence ambiguity dynamically shapes striatal dopamine heterogeneity

Bornhoft, K. N.; Prohofsky, J.; O'Neal, T. J.; Wolff, A. R.; Saunders, B. T.

2024-05-17 neuroscience
10.1101/2024.05.17.594692 bioRxiv
Show abstract

Adaptive decision making relies on dynamic updating of learned associations where environmental cues come to predict positive and negatively valenced stimuli, such as food or threat. Flexible cue-guided behaviors depend on a network of brain systems, including dopamine signaling in the striatum, which is critical for learning and maintenance of conditioned behaviors. Critically, it remains unclear how dopamine signaling encodes multi-valent, dynamic learning contexts, where positive and negative associations must be rapidly disambiguated. To understand this, we employed a Pavlovian discrimination paradigm, where cues predicting positive and negative outcomes were intermingled during conditioning sessions, and their meaning was serially reversed across training. We found that rats readily distinguished these cues, and updated their behavior rapidly upon valence reversal. Using fiber photometry, we recorded dopamine signaling in three major striatal subregions -,the dorsolateral striatum (DLS), the nucleus accumbens core, and the nucleus accumbens medial shell - and found heterogeneous responses to positive and negative conditioned cues and their predicted outcomes. Valence ambiguity introduced by cue reversal reshaped striatal dopamine on different timelines: nucleus accumbens core and shell signals updated more readily than those in the DLS. Together, these results suggest that striatal dopamine flexibly encodes multi-valent learning contexts, and these signals are dynamically modulated by changing contingencies to resolve ambiguity about the meaning of environmental cues.

Matching journals

The top 4 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.

50% of probability mass above

"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.