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 OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

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.

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)0.001
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.770

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.010
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