MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2169630858 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhl132

Hemispheric Specialization in Human Prefrontal Cortex for Resolving Certain and Uncertain Inferences

2006· article· en· W2169630858 on OpenAlexaff
Vinod Goel, Michael Tierney, Laura Sheesley, Angela Bartolo, Oshin Vartanian, Jordan Grafman

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrefrontal cortexInferenceRight hemispherePsychologyCognitive psychologyLateralization of brain functionLeft and rightNeuroscienceCognitionComputer scienceArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Uncertainty is a fact of life that must be accommodated in real-world decision making. Although it has been suggested that the right prefrontal cortex (PFC) has a special role to play in decision making under uncertainty, there is very little hard data to support this hypothesis. To better understand the roles of left and right PFCs in reasoning and decision making in situations with complete and incomplete information, we administered simple inference problems to 18 patients with lateralized focal lesions to PFC (9 right hemisphere, 9 left hemisphere) and 22 age- and education-matched normal controls. The stimuli were systematically manipulated for completeness of information regarding the status of the conclusion. Our results demonstrated a 2-way interaction such that patients with left PFC lesions were selectively impaired in trials with complete information, whereas patients with right PFC lesions were selectively impaired in trials with incomplete information. These results provide compelling evidence for hemispheric specialization for reasoning in PFC and suggest that the right PFC has a critical role to play in reasoning about incompletely specified situations. We postulate this role involves the maintenance of ambiguous mental representations that temper premature overinterpretation by the left hemisphere.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.775
Threshold uncertainty score0.657

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
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 head0.088
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.262 · 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

Citations102
Published2006
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207