Perirhinal Cortex is Involved in the Resolution of Learned Approach–Avoidance Conflict Associated with Discrete Objects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The rodent ventral and primate anterior hippocampus have been implicated in approach-avoidance (AA) conflict processing. It is unclear, however, whether this structure contributes to AA conflict detection and/or resolution, and if its involvement extends to conditions of AA conflict devoid of spatial/contextual information. To investigate this, neurologically healthy human participants first learned to approach or avoid single novel visual objects with the goal of maximizing earned points. Approaching led to point gain and loss for positive and negative objects, respectively, whereas avoidance had no impact on score. Pairs of these objects, each possessing nonconflicting (positive-positive/negative-negative) or conflicting (positive-negative) valences, were then presented during functional magnetic resonance imaging. Participants either made an AA decision to score points (Decision task), indicated whether the objects had identical or differing valences (Memory task), or followed a visual instruction to approach or avoid (Action task). Converging multivariate and univariate results revealed that within the medial temporal lobe, perirhinal cortex, rather than the anterior hippocampus, was predominantly associated with object-based AA conflict resolution. We suggest the anterior hippocampus may not contribute equally to all learned AA conflict scenarios and that stimulus information type may be a critical and overlooked determinant of the neural mechanisms underlying AA conflict behavior.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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".