Dynamics of Vocalization-Induced Modulation of Auditory Cortical Activity at Mid-utterance
Bibliographic record
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Recent research has addressed the suppression of cortical sensory responses to altered auditory feedback that occurs at utterance onset regarding speech. However, there is reason to assume that the mechanisms underlying sensorimotor processing at mid-utterance are different than those involved in sensorimotor control at utterance onset. The present study attempted to examine the dynamics of event-related potentials (ERPs) to different acoustic versions of auditory feedback at mid-utterance. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Subjects produced a vowel sound while hearing their pitch-shifted voice (100 cents), a sum of their vocalization and pure tones, or a sum of their vocalization and white noise at mid-utterance via headphones. Subjects also passively listened to playback of what they heard during active vocalization. Cortical ERPs were recorded in response to different acoustic versions of feedback changes during both active vocalization and passive listening. The results showed that, relative to passive listening, active vocalization yielded enhanced P2 responses to the 100 cents pitch shifts, whereas suppression effects of P2 responses were observed when voice auditory feedback was distorted by pure tones or white noise. CONCLUSION/SIGNIFICANCE: The present findings, for the first time, demonstrate a dynamic modulation of cortical activity as a function of the quality of acoustic feedback at mid-utterance, suggesting that auditory cortical responses can be enhanced or suppressed to distinguish self-produced speech from externally-produced sounds.
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".