Bayesian modelling captures inter-individual differences in social belief computations in the putamen and insula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Computational models of social learning and decision-making provide mechanistic tools to investigate the neural mechanisms that are involved in understanding other people. While most studies employ explicit instructions to learn from social cues, everyday life is characterized by the spontaneous use of such signals (e.g., the gaze of others) to infer on internal states such as intentions. To investigate the neural mechanisms of the impact of gaze cues on learning and decision-making, we acquired behavioural and fMRI data from 50 participants performing a probabilistic task, in which cards with varying winning probabilities had to be chosen. In addition, the task included a computer-generated face that gazed towards one of these cards providing implicit advice. Participants' individual belief trajectories were inferred using a hierarchical Gaussian filter (HGF) and used as predictors in a linear model of neuronal activation. During learning, social prediction errors were correlated with activity in inferior frontal gyrus and insula. During decision-making, the belief about the accuracy of the social cue was correlated with activity in inferior temporal gyrus, putamen and pallidum while the putamen and insula showed activity as a function of individual differences in weighting the social cue during decision-making. Our findings demonstrate that model-based fMRI can give insight into the behavioural and neural aspects of spontaneous social cue integration in learning and decision-making. They provide evidence for a mechanistic involvement of specific components of the basal ganglia in subserving these processes.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".