MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Necessary Contributions of Human Frontal Lobe Subregions to Reward Learning in a Dynamic, Multidimensional Environment

2016· article· en· W2522989211 on OpenAlexafffund
Avinash R. Vaidya, Lesley K. Fellows

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2016
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsPsychologyCognitive psychologyFrontal lobeVentromedial prefrontal cortexDimension (graph theory)Prefrontal cortexTask (project management)Temporal lobeNeuroscienceCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

UNLABELLED: Real-world decisions are typically made between options that vary along multiple dimensions, requiring prioritization of the important dimensions to support optimal choice. Learning in this setting depends on attributing decision outcomes to the dimensions with predictive relevance rather than to dimensions that are irrelevant and nonpredictive. This attribution problem is computationally challenging, and likely requires an interplay between selective attention and reward learning. Both these processes have been separately linked to the prefrontal cortex, but little is known about how they combine to support learning the reward value of multidimensional stimuli. Here, we examined the necessary contributions of frontal lobe subregions in attributing feedback to relevant and irrelevant dimensions on a trial-by-trial basis in humans. Patients with focal frontal lobe damage completed a demanding reward learning task where options varied on three dimensions, only one of which predicted reward. Participants with left lateral frontal lobe damage attributed rewards to irrelevant dimensions, rather than the relevant dimension. Damage to the ventromedial frontal lobe also impaired learning about the relevant dimension, but did not increase reward attribution to irrelevant dimensions. The results argue for distinct roles for these two regions in learning the value of multidimensional decision options under dynamic conditions, with the lateral frontal lobe required for selecting the relevant dimension to associate with reward, and the ventromedial frontal lobe required to learn the reward association itself. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: The real world is complex and multidimensional; how do we attribute rewards to predictive features when surrounded by competing cues? Here, we tested the critical involvement of human frontal lobe subregions in a probabilistic, multidimensional learning environment, asking whether focal lesions affected trial-by-trial attribution of feedback to relevant and irrelevant dimensions. The left lateral frontal lobe was required for filtering option dimensions to allow appropriate feedback attribution, while the ventromedial frontal lobe was necessary for learning the value of features in the relevant dimension. These findings argue that selective attention and associative learning processes mediated by anatomically distinct frontal lobe subregions are both critical for adaptive choice in more complex, ecologically valid settings.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.007

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 communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.073
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.288 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations28
Published2016
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neuroscience→Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→