MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Is ventromedial prefrontal cortex critical for behavior change without external reinforcement?

2018· article· en· W2904244759 on OpenAlexafffund
Nadav Aridan, Gabriel Pelletier, Lesley K. Fellows, Tom Schönberg

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuropsychologia · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsMontreal Neurological Institute and HospitalMcGill University
FundersH2020 European Research CouncilCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsVentromedial prefrontal cortexPsychologyPrefrontal cortexReinforcementPreferenceNeuroimagingCognitive psychologyAssociation (psychology)Developmental psychologyNeuroscienceCognitionSocial psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Cue-approach training (CAT) is a novel paradigm that has been shown to induce preference changes towards items without external reinforcements. In the task, the mere association of a neutral cue and a speeded button response has been shown to induce a behavioral choice preference change lasting for months. This paradigm includes several phases: after the training of individual items, behavior change is manifested in binary choices of items with similar initial values. Neuroimaging data have implicated the ventromedial prefrontal cortex (vmPFC) in the choice phase of this task. However, the neural mechanisms underlying the preference changes induced by training remain unclear. Here, we asked whether the ventromedial frontal lobe (VMF) is critical for the non-reinforced preference change induced by CAT. For this purpose, 11 participants with focal lesions involving the VMF and 30 healthy age-matched controls performed the CAT. The VMF group was similar to the healthy age-matched control group in the ranking and training phases. As a group, the healthy age-matched controls exhibited a training-induced behavior change, while the VMF group did not. However, on an individual level analysis we found that some of the VMF participants showed a significant preference shift. Thus, we find mixed evidence for the role of VMF in this paradigm. This is another step towards defining the mechanisms underlying the novel form of behavioral change that occurs with CAT.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.270
GPT teacher head0.452
Teacher spread0.182 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations20
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuropsychologiaSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207