MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2978934168 · doi:10.1101/794305

Representation of Task Structure in Human Hippocampus and Orbitofrontal Cortex

2019· preprint· en· W2978934168 on OpenAlexaff

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2019
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicMemory and Neural Mechanisms
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersOffice of Naval ResearchNational Institute on Aging
KeywordsOrbitofrontal cortexTask (project management)HippocampusFunctional magnetic resonance imagingContext (archaeology)Representation (politics)Episodic memoryBrain mapping

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

ABSTRACT The hippocampus is thought to support episodic memory, or memory for specific events, but recent work also suggests that it may be involved in extracting structure from the world to guide future decisions and predictions. Recent evidence in rodents suggests that the hippocampus supports decision-making in cooperation with orbitofrontal cortex (OFC), possibly based on representation of task structure. Here, we used functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to test how the human hippocampus and OFC represents decision-relevant information extracted from previous experiences. Participants performed a task in which they learned values of different foods in grocery store contexts. The task was structured such that we could examine the degree to which neural representations could reflect generalized information about different task structures. Specifically, we manipulated whether a food’s desirability varied with store context or not. Some foods were desirable in some store contexts and not in others; some foods were always desirable or undesirable. Participants needed to extract these two task sub-structures (i.e., context-determined vs. context-invariant) from the task structure. We examined hippocampal and OFC activity patterns during a decision-making task after participants were trained with the task structure. Our results showed that both hippocampus and OFC carried task structure information that was relevant to the decision outcomes. Hippocampal and lateral OFC representations differentiated between context-determined (deterministic) and context-invariant (probabilistic) task structures. The degree of this differentiation, an index of task structure representation, was highly correlated between hippocampus and lateral OFC. These results add to a mounting evidence suggesting that the hippocampus and OFC support decision-making by representing task relevant information to the decision outcomes after the task structure is learned.

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: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.008

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 studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.031
GPT teacher head0.270
Teacher spread0.239 · 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 designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2019
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicMemory and Neural MechanismsFrench-language works237,207