Experience-Dependent Modulation of Feedback Integration during Singing: Role of the Right Anterior Insula
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Somatosensation plays an important role in the motor control of vocal functions, yet its neural correlate and relation to vocal learning is not well understood. We used fMRI in 17 trained singers and 12 nonsingers to study the effects of vocal-fold anesthesia on the vocal-motor singing network as a function of singing expertise. Tasks required participants to sing musical target intervals under normal conditions and after anesthesia. At the behavioral level, anesthesia altered pitch accuracy in both groups, but singers were less affected than nonsingers, indicating an experience-dependent effect of the intervention. At the neural level, this difference was accompanied by distinct patterns of decreased activation in singers (cortical and subcortical sensory and motor areas) and nonsingers (subcortical motor areas only) respectively, suggesting that anesthesia affected the higher-level voluntary (explicit) motor and sensorimotor integration network more in experienced singers, and the lower-level (implicit) subcortical motor loops in nonsingers. The right anterior insular cortex (AIC) was identified as the principal area dissociating the effect of expertise as a function of anesthesia by three separate sources of evidence. First, it responded differently to anesthesia in singers (decreased activation) and nonsingers (increased activation). Second, functional connectivity between AIC and bilateral A1, M1, and S1 was reduced in singers but augmented in nonsingers. Third, increased BOLD activity in right AIC in singers was correlated with larger pitch deviation under anesthesia. We conclude that the right AIC and sensory-motor areas play a role in experience-dependent modulation of feedback integration for vocal motor control during singing.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".