Computational neuroscience across the lifespan: Promises and pitfalls
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In recent years, the application of computational modeling in studies on age-related changes in decision making and learning has gained in popularity. One advantage of computational models is that they provide access to latent variables that cannot be directly observed from behavior. In combination with experimental manipulations, these latent variables can help to test hypotheses about age-related changes in behavioral and neurobiological measures at a level of specificity that is not achievable with descriptive analysis approaches alone. This level of specificity can in turn be beneficial to establish the identity of the corresponding behavioral and neurobiological mechanisms. In this paper, we will illustrate applications of computational methods using examples of lifespan research on risk taking, strategy selection and reinforcement learning. We will elaborate on problems that can occur when computational neuroscience methods are applied to data of different age groups. Finally, we will discuss potential targets for future applications and outline general shortcomings of computational neuroscience methods for research on human lifespan development.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.008 | 0.010 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.003 | 0.007 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".