Right BA 10 lesions impair performance on real-world planning but are not sensitive to problem novelty or tower tasks
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The prefrontal cortex (PFC) is associated with many cognitive functions, including planning. In the neuropsychology literature planning is reduced to "look ahead" ability and most extensively studied with the "tower" tasks. The most influential theoretical explanation is that planning is required in the absence of a routine solution and PFC patients have difficulty coping with novelty. There is an alternate view of planning that emphasizes the distinction between real world tasks and laboratory tower tasks. This account focuses on the structure of problem spaces and why patients with lesions to right PFC have difficulty navigating ill-structured problem spaces. To further explore these issues we administered two real world travel planning tasks to 56 Vietnam War veterans with penetrating brain lesions and 14 matched normal controls. One planning task involved familiar knowledge while the other involved knowledge unfamiliar to our participants. Participants also completed the D-KEFS tower task. A subset of 18 patients-with lesions to right anterior prefrontal cortex (BA 10)-were impaired in the travel planning task compared to normal controls. The task familiarity/novelty dimension affected performance across participant groups (familiar-task scores were higher than unfamiliar-task scores), but it did not differentially affect any group. An examination of cognitive strategies utilized by participants revealed that the impaired patient group had difficulty maintaining a sufficient level of abstraction and engaged the task at a much more concrete level than other participants. Interestingly, patients impaired in the real-world planning tasks were not impaired in the tower tasks. We conclude that patients with lesions to right BA 10 have difficulty in real-world planning tasks that can be attributed to difficulties in engaging problems at the appropriate level of abstraction.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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".