Phasic dopamine responses are thought to encode a prediction-error signal consistent with model-free reinforcement learning theories. However, a number of recent findings highlight the influence of model-based computations on dopamine responses, and suggest that dopamine prediction errors reflect more dimensions of an expected outcome than scalar reward value. Here, we review a selection of these recent results and discuss the implications and complications of model-based predictions for computational theories of dopamine and learning.

Summary Dopamine neurons signal reward prediction errors. This requires accurate reward predictions. It has been suggested that the ventral striatum provides these predictions. Here we tested this hypothesis by recording from putative dopamine neurons in the VTA of rats performing a task in which prediction errors were induced by shifting reward timing or number. In controls, the neurons exhibited error signals in response to both manipulations. However, dopamine neurons in rats with ipsilateral ventral striatal lesions exhibited errors only to changes in number and failed to respond to changes in timing of reward. These results, supported by computational modeling, indicate that predictions about the temporal specificity and the number of expected rewards are dissociable, and that dopaminergic prediction-error signals rely on the ventral striatum for the former but not the latter.

No abstract

Reinforcement learning is a powerful framework for modelling the cognitive and neural substrates of learning and decision making. Contemporary research in cognitive neuroscience and neuroeconomics typically uses valuebased reinforcement-learning models, which assume that decision-makers choose by comparing learned values for different actions. However, another possibility is suggested by a simpler family of models, called policy-gradient reinforcement learning. Policy-gradient models learn by optimizing a behavioral policy directly, without the intermediate step of value-learning. Here we review recent behavioral and neural findings that are more parsimoniously explained by policy-gradient models than by value-based models. We conclude that, despite the ubiquity of 'value' in reinforcement-learning models of decision making, policy-gradient models provide a lightweight and compelling alternative model of operant behavior.