Individual differences in successful self-regulation of the dopaminergic midbrain
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The dopaminergic midbrain is associated with brain functions, such as reinforcement learning, motivation and decision-making that are often disturbed in neuropsychiatric disease. Previous research has shown that activity in the dopaminergic midbrain can be endogenously modulated via neurofeedback, suggesting potential for non-pharmacological interventions. However, the robustness of endogenous modulation, a requirement for clinical translation, is unclear. Here, we examined how self-modulation capability relates to regulation transfer. Moreover, to elucidate potential mechanisms underlying successful self-regulation, we studied individual prediction error coding, and, during an independent monetary incentive delay (MID) task, individual reward sensitivity. Fifty-nine participants underwent neurofeedback training either in a veridical or inverted feedback group. Successful self-regulation was associated with post-training activity within the cognitive control network and accompanied by decreasing prefrontal prediction error signals and increased prefrontal reward sensitivity in the MID task. The correlative link of dopaminergic self-regulation with individual differences in prefrontal prediction error and reward sensitivity suggests that reinforcement learning contributes to successful self-regulation. Our findings therefore provide new insights in the control of dopaminergic midbrain activity and pave the way to improve neurofeedback training in neuropsychiatric patients.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".