MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169045811 · doi:10.1111/1469-8986.3720216

Error processing and the rostral anterior cingulate: An event‐related fMRI study

2000· article· en· W2169045811 on OpenAlexaff
Kent A. Kiehl, Peter F. Liddle, Joseph B. Hopfinger

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychophysiology · 2000
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAnterior cingulate cortexError-related negativityPsychologyCingulate cortexNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognitive psychologyCognitionCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The anterior cingulate is believed to play a crucial role in the regulation of thought and action. Recent evidence suggests that the anterior cingulate may play a role in the detection of inappropriate responses. We used event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging techniques to examine the neural responses to appropriate (correct rejects and correct hits) and inappropriate (errors of commission) behavioral responses during a go/no-go task. Analyses of the inappropriate responses revealed extensive activation in the rostral anterior cingulate cortex and in the left lateral frontal cortex. These areas were not activated for correctly classified trials (correct rejects and correct hits). These data suggest that the rostral anterior cingulate and left lateral frontal cortex are integral components of the brain's error checking system.

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)0.002
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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.065
GPT teacher head0.386
Teacher spread0.321 · 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

Citations648
Published2000
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychophysiologySame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207