MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Tracking Progress toward a Goal in Corticostriatal Ensembles

2014· article· en· W2073727525 on OpenAlexafffund
Liya Ma, James M. Hyman, Anthony G. Phillips, Jeremy K. Seamans

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsNeuroscienceAnterior cingulate cortexSequence (biology)Action (physics)PsychologyBiological neural networkDorsumStriatumComputer scienceCognitionBiologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

When performing sequences of actions, we constantly keep track of our current position in the sequence relative to the overall goal. The present study searched for neural representations of sequence progression in corticostriatal circuits. Neurons within the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) and its target region in the dorsal striatum (DS) were recorded from simultaneously as rats performed different sequences of lever presses. We analyzed the responses of the neurons to presses occurring in the "first," "second," or "third" serial position regardless of the particular sequence or physical levers. Principal component analysis revealed that the main source of firing rate variance in the ACC was a smooth ramp-like change as the animal progressed through the sequence toward the reward. No such smooth-ramping activity was observed in DS ensembles as firing tended to be tightly linked to each action. In the ACC, the progression in firing was observed only for correct choices and not errors, whereas in the DS, firing associated with each action in a sequence was similar regardless of whether the action was correct or not. Therefore, different forms of a signal exist within corticostriatal circuits that evolve across a sequence of actions, with DS ensembles tracking every action and ACC ensembles tracking actual progress toward the goal.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.541
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.195
GPT teacher head0.396
Teacher spread0.201 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations70
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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