MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W3215244705 · doi:10.1101/2021.11.17.469021

Hidden temporal structure of the ongoing task impacts detection strategy and is reflected in pupillary dynamics

2021· preprint· en· W3215244705 on OpenAlexaff
Jennifer Lawlor, Agnès Zagala, Sara Jamali, Yves Boubenec

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2021
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound Research
FundersAgence Nationale de la Recherche
KeywordsTask (project management)Context (archaeology)Dynamics (music)Computer scienceAdaptation (eye)Pupillary responseCognitive psychologyPsychologyArtificial intelligencePupilNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Estimating temporal regularities in incoming sensory inputs supports optimal decisions in noisy environments. In particular, inferred temporal structure can ease the detection of likely target events. Here we postulated that timely urgency signals can adapt subjects’ decision-making to the ongoing task temporal structure, possibly through neuromodulatory tone. To test this hypothesis, we used an auditory change detection task in which targets followed a block-based temporal contingency, unbeknownst to participants. False alarm occurrences were driven by the distribution of target timings, indicating that participants adapted their behavior to the ongoing temporal structure. Task-evoked pupillary responses were larger for blocks with earliest target timings, and correlated with individual subjects’ behavioral adaptation. Individual pupil responses matched an urgency signal extracted from a decision model fitted to behavior. This work demonstrates that internal temporal expectation can be tracked through pupillary dynamics, suggesting a role of neuromodulatory systems in context-dependent modulation of decision variable dynamics.

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)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.014
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.209 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→