MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Retest reliability of medial frontal negativities during performance monitoring

2009· article· en· W1969717184 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBrock University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyError-related negativityNegativity effectAnterior cingulate cortexReliability (semiconductor)ElectrophysiologyTraitAudiologyElectroencephalographyEvent-related potentialCognitive psychologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceCognitionComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The error-related negativity (ERN) and feedback-related negativity (FRN) have been used as electrophysiological indices of performance monitoring produced in response to internally generated (errors) and externally generated (feedback) activations of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC). No studies to date have systematically examined the measurement reliability of these components. In this article, we present the retest reliability of the ERN and FRN during response tasks designed to elicit errors or feedback responses on two occasions. Data from four experiments are presented in which participants performed tasks over various periods of time. Results indicate good retest reliability of the ERN and FRN amplitudes and source generation of these components. The present article provides important validation of the ERN and FRN as stable and trait-like electrophysiological reflections of performance monitoring and ACC functional integrity.

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.

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 score0.344
Threshold uncertainty score0.521

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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.072
GPT teacher head0.343
Teacher spread0.271 · 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