MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2164236564 · doi:10.1186/1471-2202-12-s1-p82

Attracting states in frontal cortex networks associated with working memory and decision making

2011· article· en· W2164236564 on OpenAlexaff
Emili Balaguer‐Ballester, Christopher C. Lapish, Jeremy K. Seamans, Daniel Durstewitz

Bibliographic record

VenueBMC Neuroscience · 2011
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersBundesministerium für Bildung und ForschungDeutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft
KeywordsWorking memoryFrontal cortexNeurosciencePsychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychologyCognitive scienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A frequent hypothesis in theoretical neuroscience is that cognitive entities are represented and processed by attracting states of the underlying neural system [1]. For instance, different attractor-like states may represent different spatial locations or cognitive entities, and transitions between these attracting sets could be associated with the recall of a memory sequence or the execution of a motor plan. Attractor states underlying cognition were previously proposed in the context of working memory [1] and decision making tasks. However, although theoretically suggested, experimental evidence is still sparse for the hypothesis that higher cognitive processes proceed by moving between attracting states in higher cortical areas. Using state space reconstruction theorems [3] and statistical learning techniques, we were able to reveal dynamical properties, not easily accessible in previous studies, of anterior cingulate cortex (ACC) multiple single-unit activity (MSUA) during a cognitive task. The approach worked by constructing high-dimensional state spaces from delays of the original single-unit instantaneous firing-rates and all possible products (multinomials) among them up to some specific order. The dynamics within these sparse and high-dimensional spaces of neural activity interactions were then statistically accessed using strongly regularized kernel methods [4,5]. Results showed cognitive-epoch-specific neural ensemble states (dependent on behavioral performance [3]) in ACC while the rats performed an ecologically valid eight-arm radial arm-maze task. More interestingly, these cognitively defined ensemble states showed some hallmarks of attracting behavior which became apparent in high-dimensional expansions of the MSU spaces due to a proper unfolding of the neural activity flow. It turned out that optimal unfolding of neural trajectories was achieved in an embedding space characterized by a specific maximum order of neural interactions, common across different animals. In further analyses, ensemble states as a function of the animal’s spatial position i.e. the arm visited were analyzed. From these analyses the intrinsic dimensionality which is relevant to the animal’s arm choices could be computed [4]. Results showed that cognitively relevant network states were restricted to a low-dimensional nonlinear manifold within the high-dimensional space. Finally, preliminary analyses indicate that it might be possible to directly infer from this reduced space an idealized neural ensemble model with predictive properties across future trials with respect to the animal’s arm choices. An analysis of such a model would permit a full characterization of the putative neural attractors underlying working memory. To summarize, results suggest that ACC networks may process different subcomponents of higher cognitive tasks by transitioning between different attracting states. Moreover it may be possible to use these analyses to characterize the dynamical states underlying the animal’s choices without further assumptions about the biophysical variables.

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)0.000
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: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.376
Threshold uncertainty score0.583

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 studies0.0000.000
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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.263
Teacher spread0.196 · 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 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

Citations0
Published2011
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueBMC NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207