MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4387782363 · doi:10.1038/s41593-023-01461-x

The rat frontal orienting field dynamically encodes value for economic decisions under risk

2023· article· en· W4387782363 on OpenAlexfundno aff
Chaofei Bao, Xiaoyue Zhu, Joshua Mōller-Mara, Jingjie Li, Sylvain Dubroqua, Jeffrey C. Erlich

Bibliographic record

VenueNature Neuroscience · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsnot available
FundersMajor Research PlanEast China Normal UniversityNational Natural Science Foundation of ChinaWellcome TrustYork UniversityNew York University ShanghaiHigher Education Discipline Innovation ProjectGatsby Charitable FoundationNYU-ECNU Institute of Brain and Cognitive Science, New York University ShanghaiWellcome
KeywordsLotteryCued speechNeurosciencePsychologyFrontal cortexPosterior parietal cortexCognitive psychologyEconomicsMicroeconomics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Abstract Frontal and parietal cortex are implicated in economic decision-making, but their causal roles are untested. Here we silenced the frontal orienting field (FOF) and posterior parietal cortex (PPC) while rats chose between a cued lottery and a small stable surebet. PPC inactivations produced minimal short-lived effects. FOF inactivations reliably reduced lottery choices. A mixed-agent model of choice indicated that silencing the FOF caused a change in the curvature of the rats’ utility function ( U = V ρ ). Consistent with this finding, single-neuron and population analyses of neural activity confirmed that the FOF encodes the lottery value on each trial. A dynamical model, which accounts for electrophysiological and silencing results, suggests that the FOF represents the current lottery value to compare against the remembered surebet value. These results demonstrate that the FOF is a critical node in the neural circuit for the dynamic representation of action values for choice under risk.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.007
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
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 score0.827
Threshold uncertainty score0.999

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.007
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0020.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.019
GPT teacher head0.293
Teacher spread0.275 · 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.

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

Citations19
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNature NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207