Title |
Dopamine, Affordance and Active Inference
|
---|---|
Published in |
PLoS Computational Biology, January 2012
|
DOI | 10.1371/journal.pcbi.1002327 |
Pubmed ID | |
Authors |
Karl J. Friston, Tamara Shiner, Thomas FitzGerald, Joseph M. Galea, Rick Adams, Harriet Brown, Raymond J. Dolan, Rosalyn Moran, Klaas Enno Stephan, Sven Bestmann |
Abstract |
The role of dopamine in behaviour and decision-making is often cast in terms of reinforcement learning and optimal decision theory. Here, we present an alternative view that frames the physiology of dopamine in terms of Bayes-optimal behaviour. In this account, dopamine controls the precision or salience of (external or internal) cues that engender action. In other words, dopamine balances bottom-up sensory information and top-down prior beliefs when making hierarchical inferences (predictions) about cues that have affordance. In this paper, we focus on the consequences of changing tonic levels of dopamine firing using simulations of cued sequential movements. Crucially, the predictions driving movements are based upon a hierarchical generative model that infers the context in which movements are made. This means that we can confuse agents by changing the context (order) in which cues are presented. These simulations provide a (Bayes-optimal) model of contextual uncertainty and set switching that can be quantified in terms of behavioural and electrophysiological responses. Furthermore, one can simulate dopaminergic lesions (by changing the precision of prediction errors) to produce pathological behaviours that are reminiscent of those seen in neurological disorders such as Parkinson's disease. We use these simulations to demonstrate how a single functional role for dopamine at the synaptic level can manifest in different ways at the behavioural level. |
X Demographics
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United Kingdom | 2 | 11% |
United States | 2 | 11% |
Australia | 1 | 6% |
Korea, Republic of | 1 | 6% |
Belgium | 1 | 6% |
Japan | 1 | 6% |
Germany | 1 | 6% |
Saudi Arabia | 1 | 6% |
Italy | 1 | 6% |
Other | 1 | 6% |
Unknown | 6 | 33% |
Demographic breakdown
Type | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Members of the public | 14 | 78% |
Scientists | 3 | 17% |
Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 1 | 6% |
Mendeley readers
Geographical breakdown
Country | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
United States | 8 | 1% |
United Kingdom | 7 | 1% |
Germany | 4 | <1% |
Netherlands | 4 | <1% |
Switzerland | 3 | <1% |
France | 3 | <1% |
Portugal | 3 | <1% |
Denmark | 2 | <1% |
Russia | 2 | <1% |
Other | 10 | 2% |
Unknown | 518 | 92% |
Demographic breakdown
Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Student > Ph. D. Student | 158 | 28% |
Researcher | 104 | 18% |
Student > Master | 59 | 10% |
Student > Bachelor | 37 | 7% |
Professor | 29 | 5% |
Other | 114 | 20% |
Unknown | 63 | 11% |
Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
---|---|---|
Psychology | 139 | 25% |
Neuroscience | 98 | 17% |
Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 70 | 12% |
Medicine and Dentistry | 44 | 8% |
Computer Science | 31 | 5% |
Other | 84 | 15% |
Unknown | 98 | 17% |