MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3003771948 · doi:10.1002/hbm.24941

Network failures: When incentives trigger impulsive responses

2020· article· en· W3003771948 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Peter Zhukovsky, Sharon Morein‐Zamir, Chun Meng, Jeffrey W. Dalley, Karen D. Ersche

Bibliographic record

VenueHuman Brain Mapping · 2020
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicFunctional Brain Connectivity Studies
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersNIHR Cambridge Biomedical Research CentreMedical Research CouncilNational Institute for Health and Care ResearchMedical Research Council CanadaWellcome Trust
KeywordsFunctional magnetic resonance imagingImpulsivityPsychologyIncentive salienceIncentiveNeuroscienceImpulse (physics)Anticipation (artificial intelligence)Developmental psychologyAddiction

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Adequate control of impulsive urges to act is demanded in everyday life but is impaired in neuropsychiatric conditions such as stimulant use disorder. Despite intensive research it remains unclear whether failures in impulse control are caused by impaired suppression of behavior or by the over invigoration of behavior by stimuli associated with salient incentives such as drugs, food, and money. We investigated failures in impulse control using functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) to map the neural correlates of premature (impulsive) responses during the anticipation phase of the Monetary Incentive Delay (MID) task in healthy controls (HC), stimulant-dependent individuals (SDIs), and their unaffected first-degree siblings (SIB). We combined task-based fMRI analyses with dynamic causal modeling to show that failures of impulse control were associated with interactions between cingulo-opercular and dorsal striatal networks regardless of group status and incentive type. We further report that group-specific incentive salience plays a critical role in modulating impulsivity in SDIs since drug-related incentives specifically increased premature responding and shifted task modulation away from the dorsal striatal network to the cingulo-opercular network. Our findings thus indicate that impulsive actions are elicited by salient personally-relevant incentive stimuli and those such slips of action recruit a distinct fronto-striatal network.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.017
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch, Meta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.529
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.017
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
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 head0.096
GPT teacher head0.285
Teacher spread0.189 · 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.

Study designNot applicable
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

Citations24
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHuman Brain MappingSame topicFunctional Brain Connectivity StudiesFrench-language works237,207