ReviewFrontiers in computational neuroscience2026
A brief history of dopamine prediction errors.
Review in Frontiers in computational neuroscience, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Dopamine signaling has become closely associated with reward prediction errors (RPEs)-the difference between expected and experienced value. Although not without controversy, the dopamine RPE hypothesis is one of the most influential ideas in neuroscience. This review briefly summarizes its origins, empirical foundations, and theoretical development. We begin with early psychological studies which demonstrated that prediction errors, broadly defined, are central drivers of learning. These experiments inspired mathematical models that formalized associative learning rules and informed the development of reinforcement learning algorithms for artificial learning, including the influential temporal difference learning (TDRL) framework, where learning is guided by prediction errors in value or reward. These theoretical proposals converged with neuroscience through the landmark discovery that midbrain dopamine neurons show activity patterns that are strikingly similar to the RPEs proposed in TDRL. The idea that this unique neuronal population, already implicated in several behavioral processes and brain disorders, could encode a computational variable central to reinforcement learning algorithms was a major conceptual shift, and provided a strong framework that allowed for rigorous hypothesis testing. Over the past three decades, increasingly sophisticated experiments have both replicated the core dopamine RPE finding across distinct experimental contexts and revealed important deviations from the canonical model predictions. These exceptions have sparked ongoing debate about how the hypothesis should be enhanced, revised, or replaced. The history of the dopamine RPE hypothesis is a quintessential example of how the integration of theory and experiments can drive progress in neuroscience and offers a template for theoretical-experimental synthesis.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.