Common and distinct <scp>BOLD</scp> correlates of Simon and flanker conflicts which can(not) be reduced to time‐on‐task effects
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to identify and resolve conflicts between standard, well-trained behaviors and behaviors required by the current context is an essential feature of cognitive control. To date, no consensus has been reached on the brain mechanisms involved in exerting such control: while some studies identified diverse patterns of activity across different conflicts, other studies reported common resources across conflict tasks or even across simple tasks devoid of the conflict component. The latter reports attributed the entire activity observed in the presence of conflict to longer time spent on the task (i.e., to the so-called time-on-task effects). Here, we used an extended Multi-Source Interference Task (MSIT) which combines Simon and flanker types of interference to determine shared and conflict-specific mechanisms of conflict resolution in fMRI and their separability from the time-on-task effects. Large portions of the activity in the dorsal attention network and decreases of activity in the default mode network were shared across the tasks and scaled in parallel with increasing reaction times. Importantly, the activity in the sensory and sensorimotor cortices, as well as in the posterior medial frontal cortex (pMFC) - a key region implicated in conflict processing - could not be exhaustively explained by the time-on-task effects.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".