The Nature Of Prediction Errors And The Origin Of Neuro-Chemical

Analysis

Discuss about the Prediction Errors and the Origin of Neuro-Chemical.

The Human capability to perceive structure and the ability to have future predictions in the world is a remarkable feat that evolution has bestowed upon.  This can be explained through the nature of neuro-chemical prediction error. According to Kiper and Fellow Scholars (2016), the nature of prediction error is a crucial concept of understanding how decision making and learning happen within our brains. Concerning our various experiences and reactions, it is natural for the brain to predict what may be the next response regarding a certain stimulus (Hands, 2016). Hence, being a build response that a brain adopts due to a regular response concerning certain response. However, in situations or stimulus of actual signal being different from the known rather expected stimulus, then this leads to a prediction error. The error of prediction has a positive response to the brain, since it is used to “teach “the brain the manner of response in a better and updated way (Aboitiz & Cosmelli, 2012).  Concerning the change of stimulus, the essay will entirely involve into analyzing the prediction error and the manner in which their neurochemical origins are studied.

According to Penner & Mizumori (2012), the activation like hood estimation (ALE) Meta-analysis is applied in examining the neural correlates of prediction error in reinforcement learning. From the ALE analysis tool, the findings are interpreted in the light of current computational models of action selection and learning (Glimcher, 2015). As stated by Kilburn, Thrasher, & Gray (2010) the prediction error largely hinders the natural rate of learning. Prediction errors Is a very useful concept especially to neuroscientists. It helps in understanding how learning processes and the process of making fundamental decisions take place in brain. Brain usually takes part in transmission of signals to various parts of organs within the body tissues. It usually anticipates what will happen upon being triggered by various stimulations or in accordance to various situations. Prediction error usually result when the actual signal expected is very different or in contrast to the signal actually expected. It is therefore a very useful concept in ‘preparing’ the brain how to respond better upon triggered with certain signals. The knowledge is also very useful in studying neural processing. This will enable the brain system compare and differentiate from what was actually expected and what has happened in regard to various neurotransmission processes.

Prediction Error in the Neurotransmitter System

According to Kilbum et al (2010), to understand this process better it was essential to come up with the computational neuroscience techniques to understand neural transmission of the brain to other organs, which assists to understand better the neural functioning.  Apparently, Glimcher (2015) asserts that the conceptual understanding of the prediction error is very useful to neuroscientists to help them view the brain in predictive turns, which impacts the behavior of rationality in every individual. The brain is like a computer model it codes our action, thoughts and likely to predict the psychological behavior of diverse personalities (Forati & Sabouni 2015). Moreover the prediction error method helps us to better understand the various processes within the environment to suit the understanding of different behavioral character traits; in respect to the complex biological processes and simulations (Domínguez & Gómez 2014).

Most individuals learn more swiftly about cues for which they usually marked incorrect predictions incomparable to which their prior predictions are accurate. According to Anticevic, Repovs, and Krystal (2014), the error associated conditions or environments ted to attract more attention as observed by the features of event related scalp potentials that are previously implicated within the selective visual attention. As from Aboitiz and Cosmelli (2012)’s research, under the prediction error minimization, an individuals’ brain always seeks to diminish its prediction error. It usually minimizes the disparity between its predictions concerning the sensory input and the sensory input. Reward plays a very significant role in behavior of individual. Dopamine response represents a very essential component in underling basic processes and also error-driven causes for the reward. The probability of signal error to exist proves that error-driven learning by ability to demonstrate their implementation in the hardware of the neuron (Zerach & Kanat-Maymon 2016). The ability to have a neuronal correlate for  a positive reward prediction error in our brain cells validate the reasons scholars and individuals seek for greater rewards, which is a psychological behavioral trait, which beneficial enhances the  surviving completion  in processes related to evolution (Richard & Martin 2012). But at the same time usually result into generation of frustration of an individual, and stir societal inequalities that make well-being of an individual threatened in respect to the social status.

Principally, according to Zerach & Kanat-Maymon (2016), prediction error has various mismatches between a prior expectations and the actual resulting reaction. However, as stated by Farahany (201), the prior expectations are based on an agent’s model of the world that is partially hard-wired in the structure of neural circuits which is partly derived from statistical regularities within the sensory inputs which the agent experiences over a lifetime. Also according to Furey & Drevets (2013), the PE signals a deviation of the brain’s present state on the predicted results based on the present world model and calls for an update. A continues exposure and continues reactions and change of conditions will eventually alter the prior expectations, even when such similar expectations are the feedbacks of the lifetime of experience such as the prior (Cicchetti, 2015). Neuroanthropology process theory has become a cored part of how scientist understand reward; learning and the concept rather idea is transferred to various types of neural processing, all supported o the basic concept that the information being derived for the various discrepancy between what is required rather expected and the reality that happens can help make the brain be a better in predicting (Peter M. Todd, 2012).

Types of Predictions Errors

Conventionally, there exist various types of prediction errors: perceptual prediction errors, cognitive prediction errors, and motivational prediction errors.  Onur and Piefke (2011) elaborates that, perceptual prediction errors are one of the primary and robust paradigms on demonstrating the neural responses to unexpected conditions in the oddball paradigm. Farahany (2015) asserts that, the perceptual prediction error, the presentation of a deviant oddball results from a sequence of repeated standard stimuli that elicit larger neutral activity over the sensory regions.  However, according to Schultz (2011), the nature of perceptual PE Responses can be disconnected from any associated concepts like adoptions and stimulus-driven attention through the omission paradigms.

On the other hand, under the cognitive prediction errors, the cortical regions that are mostly as part of the sensory processing stream, are not considered as one of the sensory stream, however, instead they function on a higher order representations.  There also exists the motivational prediction error. As explained by Schultz (2011), the sensory and the higher order cognitive PE’s elaborated above show only a single aspect of the mismatch between a prediction and the general outcome, namely the size of this mismatch. For the motivational prediction errors, in a perspective of perceptual inference, a given outcome /feedback can be more or less surprising, but it can turn to be never worse or better than it would be expected. Is because, motivational prediction errors consists of PEs which rarely reflect the valence of the outcome but simply the surprise engendered by this outcome are habitually called as the |unsigned” PEs.

Researching on the relationship between neural systems and the chemical codes has become increasingly achievable by the application of neuro –imaging techniques in capturing the brain’s activity before, during and even after it experiences a chemical challenge such as tryptophan depletion (Robin & Honey, 2016). Forati & Sabouni (2015) narrates that, such an experimental approach has been a great success in confirming directly that depletion of monoamines within the brains is directly related to the lowering mood. In addition according to Zhang, Pi, Song, & Liu (2016), a neuro-Chemical origin is a research that cannot be accomplished specifically from the human brain but the application of experimental animals. In fulfilling the neurochemical research origin, one need to focus on substantial concentrations such as serotonin (5-HT) and 5-hydroxyndoleacetic acid (5-HIAA), that is very comparable to the similar tissues within the human brain tissues (Slack, 2011).  This would include using animals with small peil vessels such as cats, rabbits or rats. This is because the both animals’ pial vessels highly have the capability of providing vessels which exhibit a high-affinity uptake process with kinetic parameters that tend to be similar to those located within the cerebral cortex (Rolls, 2011).

 From the rat’s piel vessels variety of pharmacological manipulations can be carried out. This would involve a systematic administration of the rat’s piel vessels 5-HT precursor, its monoamine oxidase inhibitor, 5-hydroxytryptophan and pargyline (Bertram Katzung & Trevor, 2014).  Another important primary monoamine, noradrenaline, has also been researched by the use of tests and depletion studies with same results. Indeed by reducing both 5-HT and Noradrenaline can result in depression in those predisposed. The studies, which have been made of neurochemical origin, have been based on the key areas of the frontal cortex that is rich in serotonin. For instance, it through the area that it would be identified that the chemical originated when those with most susceptible to poor functioning when individuals are dysphonic about themselves (Richard J. Martin & A., 2012).

On the other hand based on various techniques and methods of studying, and analyzing neuro-chemical transmitter dynamics in the brain Rolls (2011) states that post mortem analyses can be applicable. Through the processes the process can analyzed by the steady state conditions, transmitter content, the transmitter metabolites, the nature of conversion of radio labeled precursors to a transmitter, and via the  transmitter enzymes. The nature of neuro  chemical origin can also be explained by the aid positron emission tomography and by gene expression. For instance, under the gene expression, the nature of interaction of a transmitter in conjunction with its receptor can result to a cascade f different biochemical conditions within the intracellular compartment of the postsynaptic neuron.

Prediction errors are just a central nation within the theoretical models of cognition, reinforcements learning, decision making and perceptual inference (Domínguez & Gómez, 2014). As observed from Martinetz (2016)’s analysis of the effects of prediction error it can be concluded rather stated that prediction error is a crucial error rather an important response to the general function and predicting of the brain (Martha E. Shenton & Turetsky, 2013). This is because, it through the process of prediction error that the brain would be able to have accuracy and improved in its prediction. Prediction error according to (Kim & Perry, 2017), can be likened to prediction engine” a crucial error that enables the brains to have a better way of predicting.

The prediction error is generated. Conventionally, Dopamine stimulation gives forth learning to learning processes and behavioral approach (Furey & Drevets 2013). Upon encountering a better than reward that was predicted result into stimulation of dopamine neurons. Therefore the dopamine stimulation as of a natural reward may directly impact on   behavioral learning (Peter & Todd 2012). Every time there is a reward the response of our dopamine neuron impact on our behavioral changes (Kiper et al 2016). There is an instance of activation, which is as result of positive dopamine response to positive prediction errors. Dopamine activation usually takes place when we get more reward than what we actually expected. To get same prediction error requires the same dopamine stimulation requires acquiring big reward ever time (Zhang et al 2016). The dopamine prediction error belongs to a process whereby we develop drive for wanting more reward. This may outline why we continue to seek for higher rewards but we are never satisfied with whatever we have within our ranks, this mainly because we have gotten used to whatever we have (Hands 2016). There only a more improved form of what we have like acquiring a new phone, would lead to a desirable dopamine response. Brain plays a major role in intersecting various stimuli. The impulses flow from the brain form the Central nervous system unto to the region requiring action (Martha & Turetsky 2013).Thereby resulting in our behavioral changes.

Conclusion

From various studies, it can be observed and be concluded that the prediction error has been an effective manner in which rains have been adapting the new responses. This has been effective towards having a change in response.  However, the prediction theory has been both crucial and sometimes overused.  This is because sometimes it may not provide a crucial mechanism of learning. On the other hand, the nature of its computational approach has still reduced the brain’s ability to being a computer rather than an embodied entity.

References

Aboitiz, F., & Cosmelli, i. (2012). From Attention to Goal-Directed Behavior: Neurodynamical, Methodological and Clinical Trends.London: Springer Science & Business Media.

Anticevic, A., Repovs, G., & Krystal, J. H. (2014). ‘International Neuromodulation Society 12th World Congress Neuromodulation: Medicine Evolving Through Technology June 6-11, 2015 Montreal, Canada.’Schizophrenia Research, 141 (1), 8-14.

Bertram, K & Trevor, A. (2014). Basic and Clinical Pharmacology 13 E.New Jersey: McGraw Hill Professional.

Cicchetti, D. (2015). Developmental Psychopathology, Developmental Neuroscience.New York: John Wiley & Sons.

Domínguez, S & Gómez, T. (2014). Beyond the borders: The gates and fences of Neuroimmune interaction.Washington, DC: Frontiers E-books.

Farahany, N. (2015). ‘Neuroscience and behavioral genetics in US criminal law: an empirical analysis.’ Journal of Law & the Biosciences, 11 (1), 485-509.

Forati, E., & Sabouni. (2015). ‘Neurotransmitter Specific, Cellular-Resolution Functional Brain Mapping Using Receptor Coated Nanoparticles: Assessment of the Possibility.’PLoS ONE., 10 (12), 1-13.

Furey, M. L., & Drevets. (2013). ‘Potential of Pretreatment Neural Activity in the Visual Cortex During Emotional Processing to Predict Treatment Response to Scopolamine in Major Depressive Disorder.’ JAMA Psychiatry,, 70 (3), 280-290,.

Glimcher, P. W. (2015). ‘Midbrain Dopamine Neurons Encode a Quantitative Reward Prediction Error Signal,’ Psychology of science, 47 (1), 129–141.

Hands, J. (2016). Cosmosapiens: Human Evolution from the Origin of the Universe.Hoboken: The Overlook Press.

Kilburn, K. H., Thrasher, J. D., & Gray, M. R. (2010). ‘Low-level hydrogen sulfide and central nervous system dysfunction.’ Toxicology & Industrial Health, 26 (7), 387-405.

Kim, J. H., & Perry, C. J. (2017). Review: Postnatal development of neurotransmitter systems and their relevance to extinction of conditioned fear. MCCS 2017, Neurobiology of Learning and Memory, 138, 252-270.

Kiper, P., Szczudlik, A., Venneri, A., Stozek, J., Luque-Moreno, C., Opara, J., et al. (2016). Review article: ‘Computational models and motor learning paradigms: Could they provide insights for neuroplasticity after stroke? An overview.’Journal of the Neurological Sciences., 369, 141-148.

Martha, S, & Turetsky, B. I. (2013). Understanding Neuropsychiatric Disorders: Insights from Neuroimaging.Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Martinetz, S. (2016). ‘MicroRNA’s impact on neurotransmitter and neuropeptide systems: small but mighty mediators of anxiety.’ Pflugers Archiv: European Journal of Physiology., 468 (6), 1061.

Onur, Ö. A., & Piefke, M. (2011). ‘Modulatory Effects of Levodopa on Cognitive Control in Young but not in Older Subjects: A Pharmacological fMRI Study.’Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience., 23 (10), 2797-2810.

Penner, M. R., & Mizumori, S. J. (2012). ‘Neural systems analysis of decision making during goal-directed navigation.’Progress in Neurobiology., 96 (1), 96-135.

Peter M. & Todd, T (2012). Cognitive Search: Evolution, Algorithms, and the Brain.New Jersey: MIT Press,.

Richard, J &Martin A. (2012). Fanaroff and Martin’s Neonatal-Perinatal Medicine E-Book: Diseases of the Fetus and Infant.Bolton: Elsevier Health Sciences.

Robin, A & Honey, C. (2016). The Wiley Handbook on the Cognitive Neuroscience of Learning.New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons.

Rolls, E. (2011). Emotion Explained.Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Schultz, W. (2011). Reward signals. 2 (6), 2184.

Slack, C. B. (2011). Psychiatric Annals, Volume 21, Issues 1-6.

Zerach, G., & Kanat-Maymon, Y. (2016). ‘Research report: The role of fathers’ psychopathology in the intergenerational transmission of captivity trauma: A twenty three-year longitudinal study.’Journal of Affective Disorders, 3(5), 190, :84-92.

Zhang, Y., Pi, Z., Song, F., & Liu, Z. (2016). ‘Ginsenosides attenuate d-galactose- and AlCl3-inducedspatial memory impairment by restoring the dysfunction of the neurotransmitter systems in the rat model of Alzheimer’s disease.’Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 2(194), 188-195