Double Dissociation of Stimulus-Value and Action-Value Learning in Humans with Orbitofrontal or Anterior Cingulate Cortex Damage
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Adaptive decision making involves selecting the most valuable option, typically by taking an action. Such choices require value comparisons, but there is debate about whether these comparisons occur at the level of stimuli (goods-based) value, action-based value, or both. One view is that value processes occur in series, with stimulus value informing action value. However, lesion work in nonhuman primates suggests that these two kinds of choice are dissociable. Here, we examined action-value and stimulus-value learning in humans with focal frontal lobe damage. Orbitofrontal damage disrupted the ability to sustain the correct choice of stimulus, but not of action, after positive feedback, while damage centered on dorsal anterior cingulate cortex led to the opposite deficit. These findings argue that there are distinct, domain-specific mechanisms by which outcome value is applied to guide subsequent decisions, depending on whether the choice is between stimuli or between actions.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".