Functional role of the basal ganglia in the planning and execution of actions
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.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: Recent studies of functional brain imaging have shown the involvement of the basal ganglia in executive processes such as planning and set-shifting. However, the specific contributions of the striatum in those processes remain unknown. This study aimed to test the hypothesis that the caudate nucleus is primarily involved in the preparation of a novel action and not in set-shifting per se. METHODS: In the present event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) study, a new task was developed that permitted, for the first time, to distinguish between shifts in classification when the rule is implicitly given by the task from shifts that require cognitive comparison and planning. RESULTS: Significantly increased activity in the caudate nucleus and the putamen was observed only in conditions in which cognitive planning was required to perform a set-shift, whereas significant activation was seen in the subthalamic nucleus (another region of the basal ganglia) in all shifting conditions whether or not planning was required. INTERPRETATION: We suggest that the caudate nucleus and the putamen are particularly important, respectively, in the planning and the execution of a self-generated novel action, whereas the subthalamic nucleus may be required when a new motor program is solicited independently of the choice of strategy.
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 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 | 0.000 |
| 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 it