MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort
Record W4408006867 · doi:10.1101/2025.02.27.640604

Distinct distributed brain networks dissociate self-generated mental states

2025· preprint· en· W4408006867 on OpenAlexaff
Nathan L. Anderson, Joseph J. Salvo, Jonathan Smallwood, Rodrigo M. Braga

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2025
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsQueen's University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyComputer scienceCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Human cognition relies on two modes: a perceptually-coupled mode where mental states are driven by sensory input and a perceptually-decoupled mode featuring self-generated mental content. Past work suggests that imagined states are supported by the reinstatement of activity in sensory cortex, but transmodal systems within the canonical default network are also implicated in mind-wandering, recollection, and imagining the future. We identified brain systems supporting self-generated states using precision fMRI. Participants imagined different scenarios in the scanner, then rated their mental states on several properties using multi-dimensional experience sampling. We found that thinking involving scenes evoked activity within or near the default network, while imagining speech evoked activity within or near the language network. Imagining-related regions overlapped with activity evoked by viewing scenes or listening to speech, respectively; however, this overlap was predominantly within transmodal association networks, rather than adjacent unimodal sensory networks. The results suggest that different association networks support imagined states that are high in visual or auditory vividness.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.223
Teacher spread0.211 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations2
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)→Same topicNeural dynamics and brain function→French-language works237,207→