Action and Outcome Activity State Patterns in the Anterior Cingulate Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Although there are numerous theories regarding anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) function, most suggest that it is involved in some form of action or outcome processing. The present study characterized the dominant patterns of ACC activity on a task in which actions and outcomes could vary independently. Patterns of activity were detected using a modified form of principal component analysis (PCA), termed constrained PCA in which a regression procedure was applied prior to PCA to eliminate the contribution of nontask-related activity. When trials were grouped according to outcome, a PC was found in all subjects and sessions that had large fluctuations during actions but only differentiated correct versus error trials prior to the end of the delay and again at time of the outcome. Another PC was always present that separated right from left lever presses, but only around the time of the actual lever press. Individual neurons exhibited significant selectivities for trials involving different actions and/or outcomes. Of the ACC neurons that exhibited significant outcome selectivity, the majority fired more on error trials. The present study revealed separate as well as integrated action and outcome monitoring in the ACC, especially, although not exclusively, under conditions when an error is likely.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".