Theories from reinforcement learning have been highly influential for interpreting neural activity in the biological circuits critical for animal and human learning. Central among these is the identification of phasic activity in dopamine neurons as a reward prediction error signal that drives learning in basal ganglia and prefrontal circuits. However, recent findings suggest that dopaminergic prediction error signals have access to complex, structured reward predictions and are sensitive to more properties of outcomes than learning theories with simple scalar value predictions might suggest. Here, I will present recent work in which we probed the identity-specific structure of reward prediction errors in an odor-guided choice task and found evidence for multiple predictive “threads” that segregate reward predictions, and reward prediction errors, according to the specific sensory features of anticipated outcomes. Our results point to an expanded class of neural reinforcement learning algorithms in which biological agents learn rich associative structure from their environment and leverage it to build reward predictions that include information about the specific, and perhaps idiosyncratic, features of available outcomes, using these to guide behavior in even quite simple reward learning tasks.

In the first half of my talk, I will discuss our recent work on the midbrain dopamine system. The hypothesis that midbrain dopamine neurons broadcast an error signal for the prediction of reward is among the great successes of computational neuroscience. However, our recent results contradict a core aspect of this theory: that the neurons uniformly convey a scalar, global signal. I will review this work, as well as our new efforts to update models of the neural basis of reinforcement learning with our data. In the second half of my talk, I will discuss our recent findings of state-dependent decision-making mechanisms in the striatum.

The cerebellum resembles a feedforward, three-layer network of neurons in which the “hidden layer” consists of Purkinje cells (P-cells) and the output layer consists of deep cerebellar nucleus (DCN) neurons. In this analogy, the output of each DCN neuron is a prediction that is compared with the actual observation, resulting in an error signal that originates in the inferior olive. Efficient learning requires that the error signal reach the DCN neurons, as well as the P-cells that project onto them. However, this basic rule of learning is violated in the cerebellum: the olivary projections to the DCN are weak, particularly in adulthood. Instead, an extraordinarily strong signal is sent from the olive to the P-cells, producing complex spikes. Curiously, P-cells are grouped into small populations that converge onto single DCN neurons. Why are the P-cells organized in this way, and what is the membership criterion of each population? Here, I apply elementary mathematics from machine learning and consider the fact that P-cells that form a population exhibit a special property: they can synchronize their complex spikes, which in turn suppress activity of DCN neuron they project to. Thus complex spikes cannot only act as a teaching signal for a P-cell, but through complex spike synchrony, a P-cell population may act as a surrogate teacher for the DCN neuron that produced the erroneous output. It appears that grouping of P-cells into small populations that share a preference for error satisfies a critical requirement of efficient learning: providing error information to the output layer neuron (DCN) that was responsible for the error, as well as the hidden layer neurons (P-cells) that contributed to it. This population coding may account for several remarkable features of behavior during learning, including multiple timescales, protection from erasure, and spontaneous recovery of memory.