MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2050582466 · doi:10.4236/psych.2014.58098

Examination of Complementarity in Speech and Emotional Vocalization Perception

2014· article· en· W2050582466 on OpenAlexafffund
Victoria Harms, Lorin Elias

Bibliographic record

VenuePsychology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHemispheric Asymmetry in Neuroscience
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsLateralization of brain functionDichotic listeningPsychologyLateralityPerceptionCognitive psychologyCognitionLeft and rightSpeech perceptionAudiologyDevelopmental psychologyNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Lateralization of cognitive functioning is a well-established principle of cerebral organization. The left and right hemispheres are known to play distinct and complementary roles in the processing of information. What is still unclear is whether these asymmetrically lateralized functions have a common or distinct developmental origin; are left and right processes lateralized through causal influences, or is the laterality of each function independently influenced? Left- and right-lateralized functions are commonly assessed in isolation, with little attention to the relationship in the degree and direction of lateralization within individuals. This relationship between left-hemisphere processing of speech sounds and right-hemisphere processing of emotional vocalizations was examined using dichotic listening tasks. An overall complementary pattern of lateralization was observed across participants, but no significant relationship was found for degree of lateralization of speech and emotional vocalization processing within individuals. These results support the view that functions in the left and right hemispheres are independently lateralized.

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 categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.920
Threshold uncertainty score0.232

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)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.051
GPT teacher head0.350
Teacher spread0.299 · 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; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations4
Published2014
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePsychologySame topicHemispheric Asymmetry in NeuroscienceFrench-language works237,207