Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38416209›Full record

ArticleBrain structure & function2024

The role of posterior parietal cortex in detecting changes in feedback contingency.

Sébastien Hélie

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Brain structure & function, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

1 author.

Sébastien HélieDepartment of Psychological Sciences, Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN, USA. shelie@purdue.edu.

Funding

Division of Behavioral and Cognitive Sciences 1349677-BCS
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Well-practiced or learned behaviors are extremely resilient. For example, it is extremely difficult for a trained typist to forget how to use a keyboard configuration that they are familiar with. While they can be trained on a new keyboard configuration, the original skill quickly comes back when the old keyboard configuration is used again. This resiliency of learned skills is both a blessing and a curse. It makes useful skills durable, but it also makes maladaptive behaviors difficult to extinguish. Crossley et al. (2013) proposed a computational model and behavioral paradigm aimed at unlearning skills using various feedback contingency manipulations during an extinction phase. They showed that partially-valid feedback during extinction removed evidence for fast reacquisition, which they interpreted as evidence for unlearning. In this article, we replicated the Crossley et al. paradigm using fMRI. Univariate analyses showed differences in BOLD signals between the different experiment phases in the frontoparietal attention network. The superior and inferior parietal lobules (SPL and IPL, respectively) showed the largest cluster differences both between experimental phases and between extinction conditions. In contrast, the prefrontal cortex only showed differences in cluster of activities between extinction conditions. Multivariate pattern analysis was also used with seeds in the SPL and IPL. The results showed that these brain areas were critical in detecting changes in experimental phases. Overall, the fMRI results found mixed evidence for the Crossley et al. model and suggest that while unlearning prevents fast reacquisition, the absence of fast reacquisition does not necessarily implies that unlearning occurred.

Indexed as

LearningParietal LobeBrain MappingFeedbackLimbic SystemMagnetic Resonance ImagingPrefrontal CortexExtinctionFeedback contingencyfMRIPerceptual categorization

Identifiers

PMID38416209

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.