MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2079987287 · doi:10.1162/jocn.2006.18.11.1843

Inhibitory Control is Slowed in Patients with Right Superior Medial Frontal Damage

2006· article· en· W2079987287 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.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsDisinhibitionInhibitory controlInhibitory postsynaptic potentialPsychologyFrontal lobeNeuroscienceTask (project management)Response inhibitionCognitive psychologyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Inhibitory control is an essential part of behavior. Comprehensive knowledge of the neural underpinnings will shed light on complex behavior, its breakdown in neurological and psychological disorders, and current and future techniques for the pharmacological or structural remediation of disinhibition. This study investigated the neural mechanisms involved in rapid response inhibition. The stop signal task was used to estimate inhibitory speed in a group of neurologically normal control subjects and patients with discrete frontal lobe lesions. Task procedures were controlled to rule out probable confounds related to strategic changes in task effort. The findings indicate that the frontal lobes are necessary for inhibitory control and, furthermore, that the integrity of the right superior medial frontal region is key for rapid inhibitory control under conditions controlling for strategically slow responses, forcing reliance more on a rapid, "kill-switch" inhibitory system. These results are interpreted within an anatomical framework of corticospinal motor control.

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)0.000
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 score0.447
Threshold uncertainty score0.585

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
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 head0.025
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.262 · 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