MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2135962938 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhs266

The Role of the Anterior Cingulate Cortex in Choices based on Reward Value and Reward Contingency

2012· article· en· W2135962938 on OpenAlexaff
Yogita Chudasama, Teresa E. Daniels, Daniel P. Gorrin, Sarah E.V. Rhodes, Peter H. Rudebeck, Elisabeth A. Murray

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill University
FundersNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsAnterior cingulate cortexPsychologyContingencyCognitive psychologyObject (grammar)Action (physics)Reinforcement learningAction selectionNeuroscienceReinforcementReward systemTask (project management)Value (mathematics)Cingulate cortexCognitionSocial psychologyComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMachine learningPerception

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Although several studies have emphasized the role of the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) in associating actions with reward value, its role in guiding choices on the basis of changes in reward value has not been assessed. Accordingly, we compared rhesus monkeys with ACC lesions and controls on object- and action-based reinforcer devaluation tasks. Monkeys were required to associate an object or an action with one of two reward outcomes, and we assessed the monkey's shift in choices of objects or actions after changes in the value of 1 outcome. No group differences emerged on either task. For comparison, we tested the same monkeys on their ability to make choices guided by reward contingency in object- and action-based reversal learning tasks. Monkeys with ACC lesions were impaired in using rewarded trials to sustain the selection of the correct object during object reversal learning. They were also impaired in using errors to guide choices in action reversal learning. These data indicate that the role of the ACC is not restricted to linking specific actions with reward outcomes, as previously reported. Instead, the data suggest a more general role for the ACC in using information about reward and nonreward to sustain effective choice behavior.

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 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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.289
Threshold uncertainty score0.364

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 head0.038
GPT teacher head0.311
Teacher spread0.272 · 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

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations104
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207