Predicting individual differences of fear and cognitive learning and extinction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The ability to acquire new information and to modify previously learned knowledge are critical in an ever-changing world. However, the efficacy of learning is notably variable among individuals, with extinction learning being the epitome of such variability. Abundant studies have identified a core network of brain regions including the amygdala, hippocampus, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), ventromedial prefrontal cortex (PFC) and, more recently, the cerebellum, as key players in learning and extinction. Yet, the precise interactions within this network and their relationship to individual learning abilities and extinction have remained largely unexplored. In the present study, we examined how functional (FC), effective (EC), and structural (SC) connectivity patterns in the core learning network allow the prediction of individual differences in the efficacy of learning, extinction, and renewal. Analysing a large dataset of over 500 participants across a multitude of paradigms, our results revealed that FC predicted better acquisition, with a central role of ACC and hippocampus, whereas SC, involving ACC and amygdala, predicted higher levels of extinction learning. EC results suggested a predominantly inhibitory coupling among core learning network nodes, with paradigm-specific EC connectivity patterns predicting learning. Our predictions not only generalised between fear and cognitive predictive learning paradigms but were also successful in predicting learning from task-related FC and simulated data. Together, these results describe the multimodal neural determinants of learning, extinction, and renewal, and may inform individualised interventions for affective disorders based on neural connectivity patterns.
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 | 0.007 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".