Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective: Frontotemporal Dementia (FTD) is a neurodegenerative disorder that results in disinhibition and difficulty with flexible responding when provided feedback. Inflexible responding is observed early in the course of the illness and contributes to the financial and social morbidities of FTD. Reversal learning is an established cognitive paradigm that indexes flexible responding in the face of feedback signaling a change in reinforcement contingencies, with components of reversal learning associated with specific neurotransmitter systems. The objective of the study was to evaluate the neural mechanisms underlying impaired flexible behavioural responding in FTD using a reversal learning paradigm combined with fMRI. Methods: Twenty-two patients meeting the diagnostic criteria for FTD and twenty-one healthy controls completed the study. Participants completed an fMRI-adapted reversal learning task that indexes behavioural flexibility when provided positive and negative feedback. Results: Patients with FTD demonstrated poorer behavioural flexibility relative to controls and abnormal BOLD responses within the left ventrolateral prefrontal cortex to incorrect responses made during the learning phase, and during correct responses when reward contingencies were reversed. As well, patients showed decreased activity within the left dorsal lateral prefrontal cortex to incorrect responses compared to controls. Conclusions: These findings suggest that reversal learning impairments in patients with FTD, in particular those with frontal predominant atrophy, may be related to impaired flexible motor responding when selecting among several choices and deficient attention to relevant stimuli during instances of conflict (i.e. receiving negative feedback). These results and the associated neurotransmitter systems mediating these regions may provide targets for future pharmacological or behavioural interventions mediating these cognitive deficits.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".