Neural correlates of conflict resolution between automatic and volitional actions by basal ganglia
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A dominant basal ganglia (BG) model consists of two functionally opposite pathways: one facilitates motor output and the other suppresses it. Although this idea was originally proposed to account for motor deficits, it has been extended recently also to explain cognitive deficits. Here, we employed the antisaccade paradigm (look away from a stimulus) to address the role of the caudate nucleus, the main BG input stage where the two pathways diverge, in conflict resolution. Using single neuron recordings in awake monkeys, we identified the following three groups of neurons. The first group of neurons showed activity consistent with sensory-driven (automatic) saccades toward a contralateral visual stimulus. The second group of neurons showed activity consistent with internally driven (volitional) saccades toward the contralateral side regardless of stimulus locations. The third group of neurons showed similar firing characteristics with the second group of neurons, except that their preferred saccade direction was ipsilateral. The activity of the three groups of neurons was correlated with behavioral outcome. Based on these findings, we suggest the following hypothesis: the first and second groups of neurons encoding automatic and volitional saccades, respectively, might give rise to the facilitation (direct) pathway and promote saccades toward the opposite directions, which creates a response conflict. This conflict could be resolved by the third group of caudate neurons, which might give rise to the suppression (indirect) pathway and attenuate inappropriate saccade commands toward the stimulus.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".