The neurochemical basis of human cortical auditory processing: combining proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy and magnetoencephalography
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: A combination of magnetoencephalography and proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy was used to correlate the electrophysiology of rapid auditory processing and the neurochemistry of the auditory cortex in 15 healthy adults. To assess rapid auditory processing in the left auditory cortex, the amplitude and decrement of the N1m peak, the major component of the late auditory evoked response, were measured during rapidly successive presentation of acoustic stimuli. We tested the hypothesis that: (i) the amplitude of the N1m response and (ii) its decrement during rapid stimulation are associated with the cortical neurochemistry as determined by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy. RESULTS: Our results demonstrated a significant association between the concentrations of N-acetylaspartate, a marker of neuronal integrity, and the amplitudes of individual N1m responses. In addition, the concentrations of choline-containing compounds, representing the functional integrity of membranes, were significantly associated with N1m amplitudes. No significant association was found between the concentrations of the glutamate/glutamine pool and the amplitudes of the first N1m. No significant associations were seen between the decrement of the N1m (the relative amplitude of the second N1m peak) and the concentrations of N-acetylaspartate, choline-containing compounds, or the glutamate/glutamine pool. However, there was a trend for higher glutamate/glutamine concentrations in individuals with higher relative N1m amplitude. CONCLUSION: These results suggest that neuronal and membrane functions are important for rapid auditory processing. This investigation provides a first link between the electrophysiology, as recorded by magnetoencephalography, and the neurochemistry, as assessed by proton magnetic resonance spectroscopy, of the auditory cortex.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".