MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3158280850 · doi:10.3758/s13423-021-01939-4

Identifying the neural dynamics of category decisions with computational model-based functional magnetic resonance imaging

2021· article· en· W3158280850 on OpenAlexafffund
Emily Heffernan, Juliana Daphne Adema, Michael L. Mack

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychonomic Bulletin & Review · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicChild and Animal Learning Development
Canadian institutionsSt. Michael's HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanada Foundation for InnovationOntario Research FoundationNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaFondation Brain Canada
KeywordsCategorizationFunctional magnetic resonance imagingPsychologyComputational modelNeural correlates of consciousnessPrefrontal cortexCognitive psychologyRepresentation (politics)Artificial neural networkCognitionNeuroscienceArtificial intelligenceCognitive scienceComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful categorization requires a careful coordination of attention, representation, and decision making. Comprehensive theories that span levels of analysis are key to understanding the computational and neural dynamics of categorization. Here, we build on recent work linking neural representations of category learning to computational models to investigate how category decision making is driven by neural signals across the brain. We uniquely combine functional magnetic resonance imaging with drift diffusion and exemplar-based categorization models to show that trial-by-trial fluctuations in neural activation from regions of occipital, cingulate, and lateral prefrontal cortices are linked to category decisions. Notably, only lateral prefrontal cortex activation was associated with exemplar-based model predictions of trial-by-trial category evidence. We propose that these brain regions underlie distinct functions that contribute to successful category learning.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Other design · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.913
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0040.000

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 head0.030
GPT teacher head0.288
Teacher spread0.258 · 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 designOther design
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

Citations6
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychonomic Bulletin & ReviewSame topicChild and Animal Learning DevelopmentFrench-language works237,207