MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4386533789 · doi:10.1371/journal.pcbi.1011427

A whole-task brain model of associative recognition that accounts for human behavior and neuroimaging data

2023· article· en· W4386533789 on OpenAlexaff
Jelmer P. Borst, Sean Aubin, Terrence C. Stewart

Bibliographic record

VenuePLoS Computational Biology · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsNational Research Council CanadaUniversity of Waterloo
FundersNederlandse Organisatie voor Wetenschappelijk OnderzoekNvidia
KeywordsNeuroscienceBrain activity and meditationNeuroimagingPrefrontal cortexFunctional magnetic resonance imagingCognitionAssociative propertyPsychologyHuman brainElectroencephalographyComputer scienceStimulus (psychology)Cognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Brain models typically focus either on low-level biological detail or on qualitative behavioral effects. In contrast, we present a biologically-plausible spiking-neuron model of associative learning and recognition that accounts for both human behavior and low-level brain activity across the whole task. Based on cognitive theories and insights from machine-learning analyses of M/EEG data, the model proceeds through five processing stages: stimulus encoding, familiarity judgement, associative retrieval, decision making, and motor response. The results matched human response times and source-localized MEG data in occipital, temporal, prefrontal, and precentral brain regions; as well as a classic fMRI effect in prefrontal cortex. This required two main conceptual advances: a basal-ganglia-thalamus action-selection system that relies on brief thalamic pulses to change the functional connectivity of the cortex, and a new unsupervised learning rule that causes very strong pattern separation in the hippocampus. The resulting model shows how low-level brain activity can result in goal-directed cognitive behavior in humans.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.984
Threshold uncertainty score0.329

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.265
GPT teacher head0.363
Teacher spread0.098 · 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.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations2
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePLoS Computational BiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207