Feature Specific Prediction Errors and Surprise across Macaque Fronto-Striatal Circuits during Attention and Learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary Prediction errors signal unexpected outcomes indicating that expectations need to be adjusted. For adjusting expectations efficiently prediction errors need to be associated with the precise features that gave rise to the unexpected outcome. For many visual tasks this credit assignment proceeds in a multidimensional feature space that makes it ambiguous which object defining features are relevant. Here, we report of a potential solution by showing that neurons in all areas of the medial and lateral fronto-striatal networks encode prediction errors that are specific to separate features of attended multidimensional stimuli, with the most ubiquitous prediction error occurring for the reward relevant features. These feature specific prediction error signals (1) are different from a non-specific prediction error signal, (2) arise earliest in the anterior cingulate cortex and later in lateral prefrontal cortex, caudate and ventral striatum, and (3) contribute to feature-based stimulus selection after learning. These findings provide strong evidence for a widely-distributed feature-based eligibility trace that can be used to update synaptic weights for improved feature-based attention. Highlights Neural reward prediction errors carry information for updating feature-based attention in all areas of the fronto-striatal network. Feature specific neural prediction errors emerge earliest in anterior cingulate cortex and later in lateral prefrontal cortex. Ventral striatum neurons encode feature specific surprise strongest for the goal-relevant feature. Neurons encoding feature-specific prediction errors contribute to attentional selection after learning.
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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".