TY - JOUR
T1 - Dialogue on economic choice, learning theory, and neuronal representations
AU - Padoa-Schioppa, Camillo
AU - Schoenbaum, Geoffrey
N1 - Funding Information:
The authors thank Guillermo Esber, Thomas Stalnaker, Katherine Conen and Xinying Cai for comments on the manuscript. This work was supported by funding from NIDA (GS, intramural program; CPS, R01-DA032758). The opinions expressed in this article are the authors’ own and do not reflect the view of the National Institutes of Health, the Department of Health and Human Services, or the United States government.
PY - 2015
Y1 - 2015
N2 - In recent years, two distinct lines of work have focused on the substrates of associative learning and on the mechanisms of economic decisions. While experiments often focused on the same brain regions. -. most notably the orbitofrontal cortex. -. the two literatures have remained largely distinct. Here we engage in a dialogue with the intent to clarify the relationship between the two frameworks. We identify a potential correspondence between the concept of outcome defined in learning theory and that of good defined in neuroeconomics, and we specifically discuss the concept of value defined in the two frameworks. While many differences remain unresolved, a common idea is that good/outcome values are subjective, devaluation-sensitive and computed on the fly, not 'cached' or pre-computed.
AB - In recent years, two distinct lines of work have focused on the substrates of associative learning and on the mechanisms of economic decisions. While experiments often focused on the same brain regions. -. most notably the orbitofrontal cortex. -. the two literatures have remained largely distinct. Here we engage in a dialogue with the intent to clarify the relationship between the two frameworks. We identify a potential correspondence between the concept of outcome defined in learning theory and that of good defined in neuroeconomics, and we specifically discuss the concept of value defined in the two frameworks. While many differences remain unresolved, a common idea is that good/outcome values are subjective, devaluation-sensitive and computed on the fly, not 'cached' or pre-computed.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84955255201&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.06.004
DO - 10.1016/j.cobeha.2015.06.004
M3 - Review article
C2 - 26613099
AN - SCOPUS:84955255201
SN - 2352-1546
VL - 5
SP - 16
EP - 23
JO - Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
JF - Current Opinion in Behavioral Sciences
ER -