MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4388552037 · doi:10.1016/j.celrep.2023.113422

Neural mechanisms for executive control of speed-accuracy trade-off

2023· article· en· W4388552037 on OpenAlexaff
Thomas R. Reppert, Richard P. Heitz, Jeffrey D. Schall

Bibliographic record

VenueCell Reports · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural and Behavioral Psychology Studies
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Institute of Child Health and Human DevelopmentNational Eye InstituteNational Institutes of Health
KeywordsSuperior colliculusNeuroscienceSupplementary eye fieldNeurophysiologyStimulus (psychology)Superior ColliculiPsychologyVisual cortexComputer scienceEye movementVisual systemCognitive psychologySaccade

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The medial frontal cortex (MFC) plays an important but disputed role in speed-accuracy trade-off (SAT). In samples of neural spiking in the supplementary eye field (SEF) in the MFC simultaneous with the visuomotor frontal eye field and superior colliculus in macaques performing a visual search with instructed SAT, during accuracy emphasis, most SEF neurons discharge less from before stimulus presentation until response generation. Discharge rates adjust immediately and simultaneously across structures upon SAT cue changes. SEF neurons signal choice errors with stronger and earlier activity during accuracy emphasis. Other neurons signal timing errors, covarying with adjusting response time. Spike correlations between neurons in the SEF and visuomotor areas did not appear, disappear, or change sign across SAT conditions or trial outcomes. These results clarify findings with noninvasive measures, complement previous neurophysiological findings, and endorse the role of the MFC as a critic for the actor instantiated in visuomotor structures.

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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.500

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 head0.101
GPT teacher head0.353
Teacher spread0.252 · 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

Citations13
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCell ReportsSame topicNeural and Behavioral Psychology StudiesFrench-language works237,207