MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Anterior cingulate error‐related activity is modulated by predicted reward

2005· article· en· W1992997294 on OpenAlexaff
Céline Amiez, Jean‐Paul Joseph, Emmanuel Procyk

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cingulate cortexError-related negativityCingulate cortexMean squared prediction errorStimulus (psychology)PsychologyNeuroscienceBrain activity and meditationCognitionElectroencephalographyCognitive psychologyComputer scienceCentral nervous systemMachine learning

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning abilities depend on detection and exploitation of errors. In primates, this function involves the anterior cingulate cortex. However, whether anterior cingulate error-related activity indicates occurrence of inappropriate responses or results from other computations is debated. Here we have tested whether reward-related parameters modulate error-related activity of anterior cingulate neurons. Recordings in monkeys performing stimulus-reward associations and preliminary data obtained with a problem-solving task revealed major properties of error-related unit activity: (i) their amplitude varies with the amount of predicted reward or the proximity to reward delivery; (ii) they appear both after execution and performance errors; (iii) they do not indicate which error occurred or which correction to make; and (iv), importantly, the activity of these neurons also increases following an external signal indicating the necessity to shift response. Hence, we conclude that anterior cingulate 'error' activity might represent a negative deviation from a predicted goal, and does not only reflect error detection but signals events interrupting potentially rewarded actions.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.003

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0010.000

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 head0.093
GPT teacher head0.341
Teacher spread0.248 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations229
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEuropean Journal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207