MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2798064630 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01241

Stress Elevates Frontal Midline Theta in Feedback-based Category Learning of Exceptions

2018· article· en· W2798064630 on OpenAlexaff
Marcus Paul, Marie-Christin Fellner, Gerd T. Waldhauser, John Paul Minda, Nikolai Axmacher, Boris Suchan, Oliver T. Wolf

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCategorizationPsychologyConcept learningCognitive psychologyCognitionElectroencephalographyAbstractionStress (linguistics)Prefrontal cortexControl (management)Developmental psychologyNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adapting behavior based on category knowledge is a fundamental cognitive function, which can be achieved via different learning strategies relying on different systems in the brain. Whereas the learning of typical category members has been linked to implicit, prototype abstraction learning, which relies predominantly on prefrontal areas, the learning of exceptions is associated with explicit, exemplar-based learning, which has been linked to the hippocampus. Stress is known to foster implicit learning strategies at the expense of explicit learning. Procedural, prefrontal learning and cognitive control processes are reflected in frontal midline theta (4-8 Hz) oscillations during feedback processing. In the current study, we examined the effect of acute stress on feedback-based category learning of typical category members and exceptions and the oscillatory correlates of feedback processing in the EEG. A computational modeling procedure was applied to estimate the use of abstraction and exemplar strategies during category learning. We tested healthy, male participants who underwent either the socially evaluated cold pressor test or a nonstressful control procedure before they learned to categorize typical members and exceptions based on feedback. The groups did not differ significantly in their categorization accuracy or use of categorization strategies. In the EEG, however, stressed participants revealed elevated theta power specifically during the learning of exceptions, whereas the theta power during the learning of typical members did not differ between the groups. Elevated frontal theta power may reflect an increased involvement of medial prefrontal areas in the learning of exceptions under stress.

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)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.020
Threshold uncertainty score0.558

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.081
GPT teacher head0.334
Teacher spread0.253 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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

Citations8
Published2018
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207