MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3162978657 · doi:10.31234/osf.io/gkfqx

WITHDRAWN

2021· preprint· en· W3162978657 on OpenAlexaff
Gabriele Fusco, You should remove Salvatore Maria Aglioti, Hause Lin, Michael Inzlicht, Salvatore Maria Aglioti

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTranscranial alternating current stimulationPsychologyNeuroscienceElectroencephalographyCognitionCognitive psychologyTemporal discountingDiscountingBrain activity and meditationControl (management)Transcranial magnetic stimulationStimulationComputer scienceDevelopmental psychologyArtificial intelligenceImpulsivity

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Decision conflicts may arise when the costs and benefits of choices are evaluated as a function of outcomes predicted along a temporal dimension. When economic binary alternatives are offered in the present or in the future (e.g. Do you prefer 5€ now or 15€ in 120 days) people may show different decision strategies depending on how sensitive they are to the discounting effect of time. Electrophysiology studies suggest that during decision conflicts it is possible to record over the medial frontal cortex (MFC) a typical oscillatory activity in theta rhythm named midfrontal theta (MFϴ). Such activity may be an index of the processes underpinning top-down cognitive control. Tellingly, MFϴ appears associated with the temporal dynamics of different brain areas, thus operating as a synchronizer during the request of control. Although the correlational link between activity in MFC and MFϴ has been demonstrated, their causal relation with conflict processing has yet to be deeply explored. A methodological approach that may fill this lack of knowledge is represented by the application of alternating current over the brain areas under investigation. The transcranial Alternating Current Stimulation (tACS) is an emerging, innovative technique that changes endogenous patterns of oscillatory activity by entraining neural networks acting on the behavioural performance in a frequency-dependent manner. In accordance with the Registered Report format, we propose a within-subject, sham controlled, cross-over study, in which we will explore the tendency to choose between economic offers during theta, gamma, and sham tACS, with the goal of modulating reaction times (RTs) and choice preferences when different levels of conflict, induced by combining specific delays and payoffs, occur. Hypothesis testing, sample size estimate and analysis of pilot results have been conducted using Bayesian statistics. We expect that our approach will advance the study of cognitive control and conflict processing during 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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.006
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Other · Consensus signal: Other
Teacher disagreement score0.346
Threshold uncertainty score0.000

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.006
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.001
Scholarly communication0.0050.003
Open science0.0020.004
Research integrity0.0030.002
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.6540.482

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.415
Teacher spread0.150 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreOther

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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→