MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1978818647 · doi:10.1097/wnr.0000000000000307

Auditory imagery forces motor action

2015· article· en· W1978818647 on OpenAlexaff
Simon P. Landry, Sara Pagé, Douglas M. Shiller, Jean‐François Lepage, Hugo Théoret, François Champoux

Bibliographic record

VenueNeuroreport · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsCentre Hospitalier Universitaire Sainte-JustineCentre for Research on Brain Language and MusicMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSensory systemAuditory imageryPsychologyMotor imagerySensory processingNeuroscienceNeuroimagingAction (physics)Neural correlates of consciousnessMotor controlCognitive psychologyMental imageCognitionElectroencephalographyBrain–computer interface

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A large number of neuroimaging studies have investigated imagined sensory processing and motor behaviours. These studies have reported neural activation patterns for imagined processes that resemble those of real sensory and motor events. The widespread use of such methods has raised questions about the extent to which imagined sensorimotor events mimic their overt counterparts, including their ability to elicit sensorimotor interactions. Direct behavioural evidence of imagery-induced multisensory interactions has been found recently in tasks involving auditory and visual processing. An influence of sensory imagery on the control of motor action, however, has not been investigated previously. Here, we show that both real and imagined moving sounds induce involuntary ocular movement in a nonvisual tracking task. The present data build on the results of previous studies of sensory imagery by showing that such conditions activate sensory neural areas. Moreover, we show an engagement of functional sensorimotor networks for imagined stimuli in a manner similar to the processing of real auditory stimuli.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
Consensus categoriesInsufficient payload (model declined to judge)
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: Not applicable
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.451
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.002

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 head0.201
GPT teacher head0.413
Teacher spread0.213 · 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; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.

Study designNot applicable
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
Published2015
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeuroreportSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207