MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1599271699 · doi:10.1109/ijcnn.2005.1556083

Functional organization of the primate prefrontal cortex for memory

2006· article· en· W1599271699 on OpenAlexaff
Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005. · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexConsumer neuroscienceSelf-reference effectNeuroscienceDorsolateral prefrontal cortexWorking memoryCognitive psychologyInterference theoryContext (archaeology)PsychologyNonhuman primateVentrolateral prefrontal cortexComputer scienceCognitionBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Summary form only given. Although it is generally agreed that the lateral prefrontal cortex plays an important role in memory, a precise characterization of the role of the different prefrontal regions in memory has proven elusive. Studies on nonhuman primates show that lesions of the mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex give rise to severe impairments on the capacity to monitor information in working memory. Functional neuroimaging studies have provided support to the idea that increased monitoring demands in experimental tasks relative to the control tasks result in increased activity in the mid-dorsolateral prefrontal region regardless of the nature of the stimulus material. By contrast, recent experiments indicate that the mid-ventrolateral prefrontal cortex is selectively involved in the active retrieval of information from posterior cortical association areas. Active retrieval is required when stimuli in memory do not bear stable relations to each other and therefore retrieval cannot be automatically driven by stable and unambiguous context relations.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.161
Threshold uncertainty score0.983

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.071
GPT teacher head0.278
Teacher spread0.207 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings. 2005 IEEE International Joint Conference on Neural Networks, 2005.Same topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207