Distinct and common neural coding of semantic and non-semantic control demands
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The flexible retrieval of knowledge is critical in everyday situations involving problem solving, reasoning and social interaction. Current theories emphasise the importance of a left-lateralised semantic control network (SCN) in supporting flexible semantic behaviour, while a bilateral multiple-demand network (MDN) is implicated in executive functions across domains. No study, however, has examined whether semantic and non-semantic demands are reflected in a common neural code within regions specifically implicated in semantic control. Using functional MRI and univariate parametric modulation analysis as well as multivariate pattern analysis, we found that semantic and non-semantic demands gave rise to both similar and distinct neural responses across control-related networks. Though activity patterns in SCN and MDN could decode the difficulty of both semantic and verbal working memory decisions, there was no shared common neural coding of cognitive demands in SCN regions. In contrast, regions in MDN showed common patterns across manipulations of semantic and working memory control demands, with successful cross-classification of difficulty across tasks. Therefore, SCN and MDN can be dissociated according to the information they maintain about cognitive demands.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".