MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Schema Representation in Patients with Ventromedial PFC Lesions

2014· article· en· W2073829542 on OpenAlex

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.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory Processes and Influences
Canadian institutionsHeart and Stroke FoundationBaycrest HospitalToronto Rehabilitation InstituteUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologySchema (genetic algorithms)Ventromedial prefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyConfabulation (neural networks)Stimulus (psychology)Prefrontal cortexNeuroscienceCognitionComputer scienceInformation retrieval

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human neuroimaging and animal studies have recently implicated the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) in memory schema, particularly in facilitating new encoding by existing schemas. In humans, the most conspicuous memory disorder following vmPFC damage is confabulation; strategic retrieval models suggest that aberrant schema activation or reinstatement plays a role in confabulation. This raises the possibility that beyond its role in schema-supported memory encoding, the vmPFC is also implicated in schema reinstatement itself. If that is the case, vmPFC lesions should lead to impaired schema-based operations, even on tasks that do not involve memory acquisition. To test this prediction, ten patients with vmPFC damage, four with present or prior confabulation, and a group of twelve matched healthy controls made speeded yes/no decisions as to whether words were closely related to a schema (a visit to the doctor). Ten minutes later, they repeated the task for a new schema (going to bed) with some words related to the first schema included as lures. Last, they rated the degree to which stimuli were related to the second schema. All four vmPFC patients with present or prior confabulation were impaired in rejecting lures and in classifying stimulus belongingness to the schema, even when they were not lures. Nonconfabulating patients performed comparably to healthy adults with high accuracy, comparable reaction times, and similar ratings. These results show for the first time that damage to the human vmPFC, when associated with confabulation, leads to deficient schema reinstatement, which is likely a prerequisite for schema-mediated memory integration.

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 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)0.003
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.740
Threshold uncertainty score0.319

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
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 science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.298
Teacher spread0.257 · 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