Macroscale brain states support the control of semantic cognition
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A crucial aim in neuroscience is to understand how the human brain adapts to varying cognitive demands. This study investigates network reconfiguration during controlled semantic retrieval in differing contexts. We analyze brain responses to two semantic tasks of varying difficulty – global association and feature matching judgments – which are contrasted with non-semantic tasks on the cortical surface and within a whole-brain state space. Demanding semantic association tasks elicit activation in anterior prefrontal and temporal regions, while challenging semantic feature matching and non-semantic tasks predominantly activate posterior regions. Task difficulty also modulates activation along different dimensions of functional organization, suggesting different mechanisms of cognitive control. More demanding semantic association judgments engage cognitive control and default mode networks together, while feature matching and non-semantic tasks are skewed towards cognitive control networks. These findings highlight the brain’s dynamic ability to tailor its networks to support diverse neurocognitive states, enriching our understanding of controlled cognition. An fMRI study on healthy participants suggests that two distinct brain states support controlled semantic cognition: one state facilitates the controlled retrieval of semantic associations, while the other state supports goal-driven control.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".