Under construction: ventral and lateral frontal lobe contributions to value-based decision-making and learning
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Even apparently simple choices, like selecting a dessert in a pastry shop, involve options characterized by multiple motivationally relevant attributes. Neuroeconomic research suggests that the human brain may track the subjective value of such options, allowing disparate reward-predictive information to be compared in a common currency. However, the brain mechanisms involved in identifying value-predictive features and combining these to assess the value of each decision option remain unclear. Here, we review recent evidence from studies of multi-attribute decision-making in people with focal frontal lobe damage and in healthy people undergoing functional magnetic resonance imaging. This work suggests that ventromedial and lateral prefrontal cortex and orbitofrontal cortex are important for forming value judgments under conditions of complexity. We discuss studies supporting the involvement of these regions in selecting among and evaluating option attributes during value judgment and decision-making and when learning from reward feedback. These findings are consistent with roles for these regions in guiding value construction. They argue for a more nuanced understanding of how ventral and lateral prefrontal cortex contribute to discovering and recognizing value, processes that are required under the complex conditions typical of many everyday decisions.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".