Multivoxel Patterns Reveal Functionally Differentiated Networks Underlying Auditory Feedback Processing of Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The everyday act of speaking involves the complex processes of speech motor control. An important component of control is monitoring, detection, and processing of errors when auditory feedback does not correspond to the intended motor gesture. Here we show, using fMRI and converging operations within a multivoxel pattern analysis framework, that this sensorimotor process is supported by functionally differentiated brain networks. During scanning, a real-time speech-tracking system was used to deliver two acoustically different types of distorted auditory feedback or unaltered feedback while human participants were vocalizing monosyllabic words, and to present the same auditory stimuli while participants were passively listening. Whole-brain analysis of neural-pattern similarity revealed three functional networks that were differentially sensitive to distorted auditory feedback during vocalization, compared with during passive listening. One network of regions appears to encode an "error signal" regardless of acoustic features of the error: this network, including right angular gyrus, right supplementary motor area, and bilateral cerebellum, yielded consistent neural patterns across acoustically different, distorted feedback types, only during articulation (not during passive listening). In contrast, a frontotemporal network appears sensitive to the speech features of auditory stimuli during passive listening; this preference for speech features was diminished when the same stimuli were presented as auditory concomitants of vocalization. A third network, showing a distinct functional pattern from the other two, appears to capture aspects of both neural response profiles. Together, our findings suggest that auditory feedback processing during speech motor control may rely on multiple, interactive, functionally differentiated neural systems.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| 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 teacher head, 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".