Differential functions of ventral and dorsal striatum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Sir, The case study by Vo and colleagues (2014) aims to address the differential roles of ventral versus dorsal striatum in learning, specifically, whether they are essential for learning or simply involved in it. The authors reported a dissociation between action-value (based on the outcomes, values will be assigned to actions) and stimulus-value learning (values will be associated with the stimuli), and how impairment of the dorsal striatum will affect each of these processes. To achieve this, Vo and colleagues tested a patient (known as XG) who has bilateral damage to the dorsal striatum, while the ventral striatum including the nucleus accumbens is spared. To compare XG’s performance in different tasks with a healthy population statistically, the researchers tested 11 matched control subjects. Among the seven reinforcement learning tasks employed, three could be solved only by learning stimulus-values, one only by learning action-values, and the remaining tasks, with either strategy. Surprisingly, they found that Patient XG was able to learn all the tasks involving action-value learning and his performance resembled those of healthy controls. However, he was impaired at learning the tasks which could only be learned using stimulus values; his performance in those tasks was significantly poorer than controls and was no different from random. Vo et al. also analysed …
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 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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".