MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2142993178 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhn223

Which Way Do I Go? Neural Activation in Response to Feedback and Spatial Processing in a Virtual T-Maze

2008· article· en· W2142993178 on OpenAlexaff
Travis E. Baker, Clay B. Holroyd

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Victoria
Fundersnot available
KeywordsNeurosciencePsychologyStimulus (psychology)Negativity effectEvent-related potentialNeural correlates of consciousnessCognitionCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In 2 human event-related brain potential (ERP) experiments, we examined the feedback error-related negativity (fERN), an ERP component associated with reward processing by the midbrain dopamine system, and the N170, an ERP component thought to be generated by the medial temporal lobe (MTL), to investigate the contributions of these neural systems toward learning to find rewards in a "virtual T-maze" environment. We found that feedback indicating the absence versus presence of a reward differentially modulated fERN amplitude, but only when the outcome was not predicted by an earlier stimulus. By contrast, when a cue predicted the reward outcome, then the predictive cue (and not the feedback) differentially modulated fERN amplitude. We further found that the spatial location of the feedback stimuli elicited a large N170 at electrode sites sensitive to right MTL activation and that the latency of this component was sensitive to the spatial location of the reward, occurring slightly earlier for rewards following a right versus left turn in the maze. Taken together, these results confirm a fundamental prediction of a dopamine theory of the fERN and suggest that the dopamine and MTL systems may interact in navigational learning tasks.

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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.859
Threshold uncertainty score0.627

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.076
GPT teacher head0.330
Teacher spread0.254 · 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

Citations103
Published2008
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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