Wisconsin Card Sorting Revisited: Distinct Neural Circuits Participating in Different Stages of the Task Identified by Event-Related Functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Wisconsin Card Sorting Task (WCST) has been used to assess dysfunction of the prefrontal cortex and basal ganglia. Previous brain imaging studies have focused on identifying activity related to the set-shifting requirement of the WCST. The present study used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to study the pattern of activation during four distinct stages in the performance of this task. Eleven subjects were scanned while performing the WCST and a control task involving matching two identical cards. The results demonstrated specific involvement of different prefrontal areas during different stages of task performance. The mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (area 9/46) increased activity while subjects received either positive or negative feedback, that is at the point when the current information must be related to earlier events stored in working memory. This is consistent with the proposed role of the mid-dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in the monitoring of events in working memory. By contrast, a cortical basal ganglia loop involving the mid-ventrolateral prefrontal cortex (area 47/12), caudate nucleus, and mediodorsal thalamus increased activity specifically during the reception of negative feedback, which signals the need for a mental shift to a new response set. The posterior prefrontal cortex response was less specific; increases in activity occurred during both the reception of feedback and the response period, indicating a role in the association of specific actions to stimuli. The putamen exhibited increased activity while matching after negative feedback but not while matching after positive feedback, implying greater involvement during novel than routine 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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".