MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4234461268 · doi:10.32920/ryerson.14647125

Conflict monitoring, error detection, and inhibition: behavioural and electrophysiological features

2021· preprint· en· W4234461268 on OpenAlexaff
Peter Egeto

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsSystems, Applications & Products in Data Processing (Canada)University of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsError-related negativityPsychologyResponse inhibitionNegativity effectTask (project management)Event-related potentialMeasure (data warehouse)ElectrophysiologySocial psychologyElectroencephalographyComputer scienceData miningAnterior cingulate cortexNeuroscienceCognitionEconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Event-related potentials of performance monitoring, including N2 (conflict monitoring), error-related negativity and error positivity (ERN and Pe; error monitoring), and P3 (inhibition) have been studied. However, conflict monitoring lacks a behavioural measure, and the functional significance of ERN, Pe, and P3 are debated. To address these issues, a behavioural measure of conflict monitoring was tested by subtracting the reaction time (RT) of a simple from a choice RT task to isolate conflict monitoring; the functions of error monitoring and inhibition were examined. The RT difference correlated with the N2 area (longer conflict monitoring related to a larger N2). ERN and Pe areas were negatively and positively correlated with errors, respectively. P3 magnitude and onset were correlated with an inhibition index. The new behavioural measure provides an accessible way to study conflict monitoring. Theories of conflict monitoring for ERN, error awareness for Pe, and inhibition for P3 were replicated and extended.

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 score0.003

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 communication0.0000.000
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 head0.182
GPT teacher head0.377
Teacher spread0.195 · 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 topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies→French-language works237,207→