A Model for Integrating Elementary Neural Functions into Delayed-Response Behavior
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is well established that various cortical regions can implement a wide array of neural processes, yet the mechanisms which integrate these processes into behavior-producing, brain-scale activity remain elusive. We propose that an important role in this respect might be played by executive structures controlling the traffic of information between the cortical regions involved. To illustrate this hypothesis, we present a neural network model comprising a set of interconnected structures harboring stimulus-related activity (visual representation, working memory, and planning), and a group of executive units with task-related activity patterns that manage the information flowing between them. The resulting dynamics allows the network to perform the dual task of either retaining an image during a delay (delayed-matching to sample task), or recalling from this image another one that has been associated with it during training (delayed-pair association task). The model reproduces behavioral and electrophysiological data gathered on the inferior temporal and prefrontal cortices of primates performing these same tasks. It also makes predictions on how neural activity coding for the recall of the image associated with the sample emerges and becomes prospective during the training phase. The network dynamics proves to be very stable against perturbations, and it exhibits signs of scale-invariant organization and cooperativity. The present network represents a possible neural implementation for active, top-down, prospective memory retrieval in primates. The model suggests that brain activity leading to performance of cognitive tasks might be organized in modular fashion, simple neural functions becoming integrated into more complex behavior by executive structures harbored in prefrontal cortex and/or basal ganglia.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.002 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".