A supramodal limbic‐paralimbic‐neocortical network supports goal‐directed stimulus processing
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Limited processing resources are allocated preferentially to events that are relevant for behavior. Research using the novelty "oddball" paradigm suggests that a widespread network of limbic, paralimbic, and association areas supports the goal-directed processing of task-relevant target events. In that paradigm, greater activity in diverse brain areas is elicited by rare task-relevant events that require a subsequent motor response than by rare task-irrelevant novel events that require no response. Both stimulus infrequency (unexpectedness) and novelty, however, may contribute to the pattern of activity observed using that paradigm. The goal of the present study was to examine the supramodal neural activity elicited by regularly occurring, equiprobable, and non-novel stimuli that differed in the subsequent behavior they prescribed. We employed event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) during auditory and visual versions of a Go/NoGo task. Participants made a motor response to the designated "Go" (target) stimulus, and no motor response to the equiprobable "NoGo" (nontarget) stimulus. We hypothesized that task-relevant Go events would elicit relatively greater hemodynamic activity than would NoGo events throughout a network of limbic, paralimbic, and association areas. Indeed, Go events elicited greater activity than did NoGo events in the amygdala-hippocampus, paralimbic cortex at the anterior superior temporal sulcus, insula, posterior orbitofrontal cortex, and anterior and posterior cingulate cortex, as well as in heteromodal association areas located at the temporoparietal junction, anterior intraparietal sulcus and precuneus, and premotor cortex. Paralimbic cortex offers an important site for the convergence of motivational/goal-directed influences from limbic cortex with stimulus processing and response selection mediated within the frontoparietal areas.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".