Learning to Like: A Role for Human Orbitofrontal Cortex in Conditioned Reward
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A great deal of human behavior and motivation is based on the intrinsic emotional significance of rewarding or aversive events, as well as on the associations formed between such emotional events and concurrent environmental stimuli. Recent functional neuroimaging studies have implicated the ventral striatum, orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), and amygdala in the representation of reward values and/or in the anticipation of rewarding events. Here, we use functional magnetic resonance imaging to compare brain activation during the presentation of reward with that during presentation of (conditioned) stimuli that have been paired previously with reward. Specifically, we aimed to investigate conditioned reward in the absence of explicit reward anticipation. Twenty-two healthy volunteers were scanned while monochrome visual patterns were incidentally associated with reward or negative feedback in the context of a simple card game. In the subsequent session, visual patterns, including the conditioned stimuli, were presented without reward or negative feedback, and the affective valence of these stimuli was assessed behaviorally. The presentation of reward compared with negative feedback activated the ventral striatum and OFC. Activation in the same OFC region was observed when, in the subsequent session, subjects passively viewed the stimuli that had been paired with reward, without the administration of reward and with subjects being essentially unaware of the conditioning manipulation. These findings suggest that the OFC in humans plays an important role in the representation of both rewarding stimuli and conditioned stimuli that have acquired reward value.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".