MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2154058446 · doi:10.1073/pnas.0700253104

Ventrolateral prefrontal cortex and tactile memory disambiguation in the human brain

2007· article· en· W2154058446 on OpenAlexafffund
Penelope Kostopoulos, Marie‐Claire Albanese, Michael Petrides

Bibliographic record

VenueProceedings of the National Academy of Sciences · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexNeurosciencePostcentral gyrusInferior parietal lobuleSomatosensory systemPosterior parietal cortexWorking memorySensory systemSecondary somatosensory cortexPsychologyConsumer neuroscienceParietal lobeFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Tactile sensory information is first channeled from the primary somatosensory cortex on the postcentral gyrus to the parietal opercular region (i.e., the secondary somatosensory cortex) and the rostral inferior parietal lobule and, from there, to the prefrontal cortex, with which bidirectional connections exist. Although we know that tactile memory signals can be found in the prefrontal cortex, the contribution of the different prefrontal areas to tactile memory remains unclear. The present functional MRI study shows that a specific part of the prefrontal cortex in the human brain, namely the midventrolateral prefrontal region (cytoarchitectonic areas 47/12 and 45), is involved in active controlled retrieval processing necessary for the disambiguation of vibrotactile information in short-term memory. Furthermore, we demonstrate that this particular part of the prefrontal cortex interacts functionally with the secondary somatosensory areas in the parietal operculum and the rostral inferior parietal lobule during controlled processing for the retrieval of specific tactile information.

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)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.783
Threshold uncertainty score0.176

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.000
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 head0.042
GPT teacher head0.313
Teacher spread0.271 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations74
Published2007
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueProceedings of the National Academy of SciencesSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207