Performance Monitoring in the Anterior Cingulate is Not All Error Related: Expectancy Deviation and the Representation of Action-Outcome Associations
Why is this work in the frame?
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Full frame distilled prediction
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.
- Candidate categories
- none
- Consensus categories
- none
- Domain
- Candidate signal: noneConsensus signal: none
- Study design
- Candidate signal: ObservationalConsensus signal: none
- Genre
- Candidate signal: EmpiricalConsensus signal: Empirical
- Teacher disagreement score
- 0.367
- Threshold uncertainty score
- 0.219
- Validation status
machine_predicted_unvalidated·codex-gemma-dda1882f352a
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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)
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
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.
- Teacher spread
- 0.196 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
- Validation status
score_only:v0-immature-baseline· verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it
Abstract
Several converging lines of evidence suggest that the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) is selectively involved in error detection or evaluation of poor performance. Here we challenge this notion by presenting event-related potential (ERP) evidence that the feedback-elicited error-related negativity, an ERP component attributed to the ACC, can be elicited by positive feedback when a person is expecting negative feedback and vice versa. These results suggest that performance monitoring in the ACC is not limited to error processing. We propose that the ACC acts as part of a more general performance-monitoring system that is activated by violations in expectancy. Further, we propose that the common observation of increased ACC activity elicited by negative events could be explained by an overoptimistic bias in generating expectations of performance. These results could shed light into neurobehavioral disorders, such as depression and mania, associated with alterations in performance monitoring and also in judgments of self-related events.
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.
The record
- Venue
- Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience
- Topic
- Neural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
- Field
- Neuroscience
- Canadian institutions
- Simon Fraser University
- Funders
- not available
- Keywords
- PsychologyExpectancy theoryAnterior cingulate cortexError-related negativityNegativity effectCognitive psychologyManiaAssociation (psychology)Event-related potentialCingulate cortexElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceCognitionDevelopmental psychologySocial psychologyBipolar disorderCentral nervous systemPsychotherapist
- Has abstract in OpenAlex
- yes