Orbitofrontal contributions to value‐based decision making: evidence from humans with frontal lobe damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The work described here aims to isolate the component processes of decision making that rely critically on particular subregions of the human prefrontal cortex, with a particular focus on the orbitofrontal cortex. Here, experiments isolating specific aspects of decision making, using very simple preference judgment and reinforcement learning paradigms, were carried out in patients with focal frontal damage. The orbitofrontal cortex and the adjacent ventromedial prefrontal cortex play a critical role in decisions based on subjective value, across many categories of stimuli, and in learning to choose between stimuli based on value feedback. However, these regions are not required for learning to choose between actions based on feedback, which instead seems to rely critically on the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex. These results point to a potentially common role for the orbitofrontal cortex in representing the context-sensitive, subjective value of stimuli to allow consistent choices between them. They also argue for multiple, parallel, value-based processes that influence behavior through dissociable mechanisms.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".