Separate neural systems for behavioral change and for emotional responses to failure during behavioral inhibition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract To analyze the involvement of different brain regions in behavioral inhibition and impulsiveness, differences in activation were investigated in fMRI data from a response inhibition task, the stop‐signal task, in 1709 participants. First, areas activated more in stop‐success (SS) than stop‐failure (SF) included the lateral orbitofrontal cortex (OFC) extending into the inferior frontal gyrus (ventrolateral prefrontal cortex, BA 47/12), and the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC). Second, the anterior cingulate and anterior insula (AI) were activated more on failure trials, specifically in SF versus SS. The interaction between brain region and SS versus SF activations was significant ( P = 5.6 * 10 −8 ). The results provide new evidence from this “big data” investigation consistent with the hypotheses that the lateral OFC is involved in the stop‐related processing that inhibits the action; that the DLPFC is involved in attentional processes that influence task performance; and that the AI and anterior cingulate are involved in emotional processes when failure occurs. The investigation thus emphasizes the role of the human lateral OFC BA 47/12 in changing behavior, and inhibiting behavior when necessary. A very similar area in BA47/12 is involved in changing behavior when an expected reward is not obtained, and has been shown to have high functional connectivity in depression. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3527–3537, 2017 . © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.003 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".