Bibliographic record
Abstract
ABSTRACT Previous studies have evidenced how the local prediction of physical stimulus features may affect the neural processing of incoming stimuli. Less known are the effects of cognitive priors on predictive processes, and how the brain computes local versus cognitive predictions and their errors. Here, we determined the differential brain mechanisms underlying prediction errors related to high-level, cognitive priors for melody (rhythm, contour) versus low-level, local acoustic priors (tuning, timbre). We measured with magnetoencephalography the mismatch negativity (MMN) prediction error signal in 104 adults having varying levels of musical expertise. We discovered that the brain regions involved in predictive processes for local priors were primary and secondary auditory cortex and insula, whereas cognitive brain regions such as cingulate and orbitofrontal cortices were recruited for melodic errors in cognitive priors. The involvement of higher-level brain regions for computing cognitive errors was enhanced in musicians, especially in cingulate cortex, inferior frontal gyri, and supplementary motor area. Overall, the findings expand knowledge on whole-brain mechanisms of predictive processing and the related MMN generators, previously mainly confined to the auditory cortex, to a frontal network that strictly depends on the type of priors that are to be computed by the brain.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.221 | 0.051 |
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".