MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2511046434 · doi:10.1037/cep0000078

Adapting to change: The role of the right hemisphere in mental model building and updating.

2016· review· en· W2511046434 on OpenAlexaff
Alex Filipowicz, Britt Anderson, James Danckert

Bibliographic record

VenueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentale · 2016
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Waterloo
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyPsycINFOSalientRight hemispherePrefrontal cortexCognitive scienceNeuroimagingInsulaLateralization of brain functionCognitionNeuroscienceComputer scienceArtificial intelligenceMEDLINE

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We recently proposed that the right hemisphere plays a crucial role in the processes underlying mental model building and updating. Here, we review the evidence we and others have garnered to support this novel account of right hemisphere function. We begin by presenting evidence from patient work that suggests a critical role for the right hemisphere in the ability to learn from the statistics in the environment (model building) and adapt to environmental change (model updating). We then provide a review of neuroimaging research that highlights a network of brain regions involved in mental model updating. Next, we outline specific roles for particular regions within the network such that the anterior insula is purported to maintain the current model of the environment, the medial prefrontal cortex determines when to explore new or alternative models, and the inferior parietal lobule represents salient and surprising information with respect to the current model. We conclude by proposing some future directions that address some of the outstanding questions in the field of mental model building and updating. (PsycINFO Database Record

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.886
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.165
GPT teacher head0.402
Teacher spread0.237 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreReview

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

Citations22
Published2016
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCanadian Journal of Experimental Psychology/Revue canadienne de psychologie expérimentaleSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207