dACC response to presentation of negative feedback predicts stimulant dependence diagnosis and stimulant use severity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Error-monitoring abnormalities in stimulant-dependent individuals (SDIs) may be due to reduced awareness of committed errors, or to reduced sensitivity upon such awareness. The distinction between these alternatives remains largely undifferentiated, but may have substantial clinical relevance. We sought to better characterize the nature, and clinical relevance, of SDIs' error-monitoring processes by comparing carefully isolated neural responses during the presentation of negative feedback to a) stimulant dependence status and b) lifetime stimulant use. Forty-eight SDIs and twenty-three non-SDIs performed an fMRI-based time-estimation task specifically designed to isolate neural responses associated with the presentation (versus expectation) of contingent negative feedback. SDIs showed reduced dACC response compared to non-SDIs following the presentation of negative feedback, but only when error expectancies were controlled. Moreover, lifetime stimulant use correlated negatively with magnitude of expectancy-controlled dACC attenuation. While this finding was minimized after controlling for age, these results suggest that SDIs may be characterized by a core reduction in neural activity following error feedback, in the context of intact feedback expectancies. Correlations with lifetime stimulant use suggest that this neural attenuation may hold clinical significance.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".