Value Neglect: A Critical Role for Ventromedial Frontal Lobe in Learning the Value of Spatial Locations
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Whether you are a gazelle bounding to the richest tract of grassland or a return customer heading to the freshest farm stand at a crowded market, the ability to learn the value of spatial locations is important in adaptive behavior. The ventromedial frontal lobe (VMF) is implicated in value-based decisions between objects and in flexibly learning to choose between objects based on feedback. However, it is unclear if this region plays a material-general role in reward learning. Here, we tested whether VMF is necessary for learning the value of spatial locations. People with VMF damage were compared with healthy participants and a control group with frontal damage sparing VMF in an incentivized spatial search task. Participants chose among spatial targets distributed among distractors, rewarded with an expected value that varied along the right-left axis of the screen. People with VMF damage showed a weaker tendency to reap reward in contralesional hemispace. In some individuals, this impairment could be dissociated from the ability to make value-based decisions between objects, assessed separately. This is the first evidence that the VMF is critically involved in reward-guided spatial search and offers a novel perspective on the relationships between value, spatial attention, and decision-making.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".