Humans show consistent differences in the extent to which their behavior reflects a bias toward appetitive approach-related behavior or avoidance of aversive stimuli [Elliot, A. J. Approach and avoidance motivation. In A. J. Elliot (Ed.), Handbook of approach and avoidance motivation (pp. 3–14). New York: Psychology Press, 2008]. We examined the hypothesis that in healthy participants this motivational bias (assessed by self-report and by a probabilistic learning task that allows direct comparison of the relative sensitivity to reward and punishment) reflects lateralization of dopamine signaling. Using [F-18]fallypride to measure D2/D3 binding, we found that self-reported motivational bias was predicted by the asymmetry of frontal D2 binding. Similarly, striatal and frontal asymmetries in D2 dopamine receptor binding, rather than absolute binding levels, predicted individual differences in learning from reward versus punishment. These results suggest that normal variation in asymmetry of dopamine signaling may, in part, underlie human personality and cognition.

Most existing models of dopamine and learning in Parkinson disease (PD) focus on simulating the role of basal ganglia dopamine in reinforcement learning. Much data argue, however, for a critical role for prefrontal cortex (PFC) dopamine in stimulus selection in attentional learning. Here, we present a new computational model that simulates performance in multicue category learning, such as the “weather prediction” task. The model addresses how PD and dopamine medications affect stimulus selection processes, which mediate reinforcement learning. In this model, PFC dopamine is key for attentional learning, whereas basal ganglia dopamine, consistent with other models, is key for reinforcement and motor learning. The model assumes that competitive dynamics among PFC neurons is the neural mechanism underlying stimulus selection with limited attentional resources, whereas competitive dynamics among striatal neurons is the neural mechanism underlying action selection. According to our model, PD is associated with decreased phasic and tonic dopamine levels in both PFC and basal ganglia. We assume that dopamine medications increase dopamine levels in both the basal ganglia and PFC, which, in turn, increase tonic dopamine levels but decrease the magnitude of phasic dopamine signaling in these brain structures. Increase of tonic dopamine levels in the simulated PFC enhances attentional shifting performance. The model provides a mechanistic account for several phenomena, including (a) medicated PD patients are more impaired at multicue probabilistic category learning than unmedicated patients and (b) medicated PD patients opt out of reversal when there are alternative and redundant cue dimensions.

The hippocampus and the basal ganglia are thought to play fundamental and distinct roles in learning and memory, supporting two dissociable memory systems. Interestingly, however, the hippocampus and the basal ganglia have each, separately, been implicated as necessary for reversal learning—the ability to adaptively change a response when previously learned stimulus–outcome contingencies are reversed. Here, we compared the contribution of the hippocampus and the basal ganglia to distinct aspects of learning and reversal. Amnesic subjects with selective hippocampal damage, Parkinson subjects with disrupted basal ganglia function, and healthy controls were tested on a novel probabilistic learning and reversal paradigm. In this task, reversal can be achieved in two ways: Subjects can reverse a previously learned response, or they can select a new cue during the reversal phase, effectively “opting out” of the reversal. We found that both patient groups were intact at initial learning, but differed in their ability to reverse. Amnesic subjects failed to reverse, and continued to use the same cue and response learned before the reversal. Parkinson subjects, by contrast, opted out of the reversal by learning a new cue–outcome association. These results suggest that both the hippocampus and the basal ganglia support reversal learning, but in different ways. The basal ganglia are necessary for learning a new response when a previously learned response is no longer rewarding. The failure of the amnesic subjects to reverse their response or to learn a new cue is consistent with a more general role for the hippocampus in configural learning, and suggests it may also support the ability to respond to changes in cue–outcome contingencies.

Based on prior animal and computational models, we propose a double dissociation between the associative learning deficits observed in patients with medial temporal (hippocampal) damage versus patients with Parkinson's disease (basal ganglia dysfunction). Specifically, we expect that basal ganglia dysfunction may result in slowed learning, while individuals with hippocampal damage may learn at normal speed. However, when challenged with a transfer task where previously learned information is presented in novel recombinations, we expect that hippocampal damage will impair generalization but basal ganglia dysfunction will not. We tested this prediction in a group of healthy elderly with mild-to-moderate hippocampal atrophy, a group of patients with mild Parkinson's disease, and healthy controls, using an “acquired equivalence” associative learning task. As predicted, Parkinson's patients were slower on the initial learning but then transferred well, while the hippocampal atrophy group showed the opposite pattern: good initial learning with impaired transfer. To our knowledge, this is the first time that a single task has been used to demonstrate a double dissociation between the associative learning impairments caused by hippocampal versus basal ganglia damage/dysfunction. This finding has implications for understanding the distinct contributions of the medial temporal lobe and basal ganglia to learning and memory.