Ventromedial Frontal Lobe Damage Alters how Specific Attributes are Weighed in Subjective Valuation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The concept of subjective value is central to current neurobiological views of economic decision-making. Much of this work has focused on signals in the ventromedial frontal lobe (VMF) that correlate with the subjective value of a variety of stimuli (e.g., food, monetary gambles), and are thought to support decision-making. However, the neural processes involved in assessing and integrating value information from the attributes of such complex options remain to be defined. Here, we tested the necessary role of VMF in weighting attributes of naturalistic stimuli during value judgments. We asked how distinct attributes of visual artworks influenced the subjective value ratings of subjects with VMF damage, compared to healthy participants and a frontal lobe damaged control group. Subjects with VMF damage were less influenced by the energy (emotion, complexity) and color radiance (warmth, saturation) of the artwork, while they were similar to control groups in considering saliency, balance and concreteness. These dissociations argue that VMF is critical for allowing certain affective content to influence subjective value, while sparing the influence of perceptual or representational information. These distinctions are important for better defining the often-underspecified concept of subjective value and developing more detailed models of the brain mechanisms underlying decision behavior.
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 | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 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".