MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2132709875 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhk031

Effects of Focal Frontal Lesions on Response Inhibition

2006· article· en· W2132709875 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

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)NeuroscienceFrontal lobeSupplementary motor areaPsychologyMotor areaPrefrontal cortexFrontal cortexPremotor cortexAnterior cingulate cortexAudiologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingMedicineCognitive psychologyAnatomyCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

This study examined the performance of 38 normal subjects and 43 patients with focal lesions of the frontal lobes on a simple go-nogo task where the probability of the nogo stimulus was either 75% or 25%. Patients with lesions to the superior medial parts of the frontal lobes, in particular to the left superior portion of Brodmann area 6 (which includes the supplementary motor areas and the premotor areas for the right hand) had an increased number of false alarms (incorrect responses to the nogo stimulus). These results indicate that area 6 is specifically involved in the inhibition of response. Patients with lesions to the right anterior cingulate (areas 24 and 32) were slower and more variable in their reaction time. These findings could be explained by an inability to sustain stimulus-response contingencies. Lesions to the right ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (Brodmann areas 44, 45, 47) also increased the variability of response, perhaps by disrupting monitoring performance.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.331
Threshold uncertainty score0.390

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
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 head0.047
GPT teacher head0.316
Teacher spread0.269 · 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