Visuocortical changes during delay and trace aversive conditioning: Evidence from steady-state visual evoked potentials.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The visual system is biased toward sensory cues that have been associated with danger or harm through temporal co-occurrence. An outstanding question about conditioning-induced changes in visuocortical processing is the extent to which they are driven primarily by top-down factors such as expectancy or by low-level factors such as the temporal proximity between conditioned stimuli and aversive outcomes. Here, the authors examined this question using 2 different differential aversive conditioning experiments: participants learned to associate a particular grating stimulus with an aversive noise that was presented either in close temporal proximity (delay conditioning experiment) or after a prolonged stimulus-free interval (trace conditioning experiment). In both experiments, the authors probed cue-related cortical responses by recording steady-state visual evoked potentials. Although behavioral ratings indicated that all participants successfully learned to discriminate between the grating patterns that predicted the presence versus absence of the aversive noise, selective amplification of population-level responses in visual cortex for the conditioned danger signal was observed only when the grating and the noise were temporally contiguous. Our findings are in line with notions purporting that changes in the electrocortical response of visual neurons induced by aversive conditioning are a product of Hebbian associations among sensory cell assemblies rather than being driven entirely by expectancy-based, declarative processes.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
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 teacher head, 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".