Role of the basal ganglia in switching a planned response
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to perform an appropriate response in the presence of competing alternatives is a critical facet of human behavioral control. This is especially important if a response is prepared for execution but then has to be changed suddenly. A popular hypothesis of basal ganglia (BG) function suggests that its direct and indirect pathways could provide a neural mechanism to rapidly switch from one planned response to an alternative. However, if one response is more dominant or 'automatic' than the other, the BG might have a different role depending on switch direction. We built upon the pro- and antisaccade tasks, two models of automatic and voluntary behavior, respectively, and investigated whether the BG are important for switching any planned response in general, or if they are more important for switching from a more automatic response to a response that is more difficult to perform. Subjects prepared either a pro- or antisaccade but then had to switch it unexpectedly on a subset of trials. The results revealed increased striatal activation for switching from a pro- to an antisaccade but this did not occur for switching from an anti- to a prosaccade. This activation pattern depended on the relative difficulty in switching, and it was distinct from frontal eye fields, an area shown to be more active for antisaccade trials than for prosaccade trials. This suggests that the BG are important for compensating for differences in response difficulty, facilitating the rapid switching of one response for another.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".