MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

The feedback correct‐related positivity: Sensitivity of the event‐related brain potential to unexpected positive feedback

2008· article· en· W2158394599 on OpenAlexafffund
Clay B. Holroyd, Kaivon Pakzad-Vaezi, Olave E. Krigolson

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British ColumbiaUniversity of Victoria
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaMichael Smith Health Research BC
KeywordsNegativity effectPsychologyNegative feedbackFernEvent-related potentialPositive feedbackCognitive psychologyElectroencephalographyNeuroscienceSocial psychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The N200 and the feedback error-related negativity (fERN) are two components of the event-related brain potential (ERP) that share similar scalp distributions, time courses, morphologies, and functional dependencies, which raises the question as to whether they are actually the same phenomenon. To investigate this issue, we recorded the ERP from participants engaged in two tasks that independently elicited the N200 and fERN. Our results indicate that they are, in fact, the same ERP component and further suggest that positive feedback elicits a positive-going deflection in the time range of the fERN. Taken together, these results indicate that negative feedback elicits a common N200 and that modulation of fERN amplitude results from the superposition on correct trials of a positive-going deflection that we term the feedback correct-related positivity.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.007
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 integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.010
GPT teacher head0.239
Teacher spread0.229 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations592
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207