MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2767220529 · doi:10.3389/fpsyg.2017.02035

Reinforcement Learning in Autism Spectrum Disorder

2017· review· en· W2767220529 on OpenAlexafffund
Manuela Schuetze, Christiane S. Rohr, Deborah Dewey, Adam W. McCrimmon, Signe Bray

Bibliographic record

VenueFrontiers in Psychology · 2017
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicAutism Spectrum Disorder Research
Canadian institutionsHotchkiss Brain InstituteOntario Brain InstituteAlberta Children's HospitalUniversity of Calgary
FundersSinneave Family FoundationAlberta Children's Hospital Research InstituteCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchSick Kids FoundationInstitute of Human Development, Child and Youth HealthHospital for Sick ChildrenUniversity of Calgary
KeywordsPsychologyAutism spectrum disorderReinforcementAutismIntervention (counseling)Psychological interventionCognitive psychologyAmygdalaPrefrontal cortexDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscienceCognitionPsychiatrySocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Early behavioral interventions are recognized as integral to standard care in autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and often focus on reinforcing desired behaviors (e.g., eye contact) and reducing the presence of atypical behaviors (e.g., echoing others' phrases). However, efficacy of these programs is mixed. Reinforcement learning relies on neurocircuitry that has been reported to be atypical in ASD: prefrontal-sub-cortical circuits, amygdala, brainstem, and cerebellum. Thus, early behavioral interventions rely on neurocircuitry that may function atypically in at least a subset of individuals with ASD. Recent work has investigated physiological, behavioral, and neural responses to reinforcers to uncover differences in motivation and learning in ASD. We will synthesize this work to identify promising avenues for future research that ultimately can be used to enhance the efficacy of early intervention.

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)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Research integrity
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.989
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0020.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0020.000
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.087
GPT teacher head0.417
Teacher spread0.330 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations56
Published2017
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueFrontiers in PsychologySame topicAutism Spectrum Disorder ResearchFrench-language works237,207