MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Multifaceted Contributions by Different Regions of the Orbitofrontal and Medial Prefrontal Cortex to Probabilistic Reversal Learning

2016· article· en· W2336078622 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeurotransmitter Receptor Influence on Behavior
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
Fundersnot available
KeywordsOrbitofrontal cortexNeurosciencePrefrontal cortexPsychologyAnterior cingulate cortexInfralimbic cortexFrontal lobeCingulate cortexCognitionCentral nervous system

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Different subregions of the prefrontal cortex (PFC) contribute to the ability to respond flexibly to changes in reward contingencies, with the medial versus orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) subregions contributing differentially to processes such as set-shifting and reversal learning. To date, the manner in which these regions may facilitate reversal learning in situations involving reward uncertainty remains relatively unexplored. We investigated the involvement of five distinct regions of the rat OFC (lateral and medial) and medial PFC (prelimbic, infralimbic, and anterior cingulate) on probabilistic reversal learning wherein "correct" versus "incorrect" responses were rewarded on 80% and 20% of trials, respectively. Contingencies were reversed repeatedly within a session. In well trained rats, inactivation of the medial or lateral OFC induced dissociable impairments in performance (indexed by fewer reversals completed) when outcomes were probabilistic, but not when they were assured. Medial OFC inactivation impaired probabilistic learning during the first discrimination, increased perseverative responding and reduced sensitivity to positive and negative feedback, suggestive of a deficit in incorporating information about previous action outcomes to guide subsequent behavior. Lateral OFC inactivation preferentially impaired performance during reversal phases. In contrast, prelimbic inactivation caused an apparent improvement in performance by increasing the number of reversals completed. This was associated with enhanced sensitivity to recently rewarded actions and reduced sensitivity to negative feedback. Infralimbic inactivation had no effect, whereas the anterior cingulate appeared to play a permissive role in this form of reversal learning. These results clarify the dissociable contributions of different regions of the frontal lobes to probabilistic learning. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The ability to adjust behavior in response to changes involving uncertain or probabilistic reward contingencies is an essential survival skill that is impaired in a variety of psychiatric disorders. It is well established that different forms of cognitive flexibility are mediated by anatomically distinct regions of the frontal lobes when reinforcement contingencies are assured, however, less is known about the contribution of these regions to probabilistic reinforcement learning. Here we show that different regions of the orbitofrontal and medial prefrontal cortex make distinct contributions to probabilistic reversal learning. These findings provide novel information about the complex interplay between frontal lobe regions in mediating these processes and accordingly provide insight into possible pathophysiology that underlies impairments in cognitive flexibility observed in mental illnesses.

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.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.241
Threshold uncertainty score0.464

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
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 science0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.275
Teacher spread0.253 · 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