MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1985155058 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0b013e328324edb8

Hemispheric differences in amygdala contributions to response monitoring

2009· article· en· W1985155058 on OpenAlexaff
Frida E. Polli, Christopher I. Wright, Mohammed R. Milad, Bradford C. Dickerson, Mark Vangel, Jason J.S. Barton, Scott L. Rauch, Dara S. Manoach

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2009
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersNational Center for Research ResourcesNational Institute of Neurological Disorders and StrokeNational Institute of Mental Health
KeywordsAmygdalaAnterior cingulate cortexNeurosciencePsychologyError-related negativityCingulate cortexCentral nervous systemCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The amygdala detects aversive events and coordinates with the rostral anterior cingulate cortex to adapt behavior. We assessed error-related activation in these regions and its relation to task performance using functional MRI and a saccadic paradigm. Both amygdalae showed increased activation during error versus correct antisaccade trials that was correlated with error-related activation in the corresponding rostral anterior cingulate cortex. Together, activation in the right amygdala and right rostral anterior cingulate cortex predicted greater accuracy. In contrast, the left amygdala activation predicted a higher error rate. These findings support a role for the amygdala in response monitoring. Consistent with proposed specializations of the right and left amygdala in aversive conditioning, we hypothesize that right amygdala-rostral anterior cingulate cortex interactions mediate learning to avoid errors, whereas left error-related amygdala activation underpins detrimental negative affect.

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)0.001
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.547
Threshold uncertainty score0.479

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.151
GPT teacher head0.422
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

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

Citations28
Published2009
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207