MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2106740306 · doi:10.1093/cercor/bhu124

Parcellation of Human and Monkey Core Auditory Cortex with fMRI Pattern Classification and Objective Detection of Tonotopic Gradient Reversals

2014· article· en· W2106740306 on OpenAlexaff
Marc Schönwiesner, Peter Dechent, Dirk Voit, Christopher I. Petkov, Katrin Krumbholz

Bibliographic record

VenueCerebral Cortex · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsInternational Laboratory for Brain, Music and Sound ResearchMcGill UniversityUniversité de MontréalMontreal Neurological Institute and Hospital
FundersBiotechnology and Biological Sciences Research CouncilMedical Research CouncilWellcome TrustVolkswagen FoundationNational Centre for the Replacement, Refinement and Reduction of Animals in ResearchUniversity of Nottingham
KeywordsTonotopyAuditory cortexNeuroscienceFunctional magnetic resonance imagingGyrusHuman brainNeuroimagingFunctional neuroimagingCore (optical fiber)Computer sciencePsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory cortex (AC) contains several primary-like, or "core," fields, which receive thalamic input and project to non-primary "belt" fields. In humans, the organization and layout of core and belt auditory fields are still poorly understood, and most auditory neuroimaging studies rely on macroanatomical criteria, rather than functional localization of distinct fields. A myeloarchitectonic method has been suggested recently for distinguishing between core and belt fields in humans (Dick F, Tierney AT, Lutti A, Josephs O, Sereno MI, Weiskopf N. 2012. In vivo functional and myeloarchitectonic mapping of human primary auditory areas. J Neurosci. 32:16095-16105). We propose a marker for core AC based directly on functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) data and pattern classification. We show that a portion of AC in Heschl's gyrus classifies sound frequency more accurately than other regions in AC. Using fMRI data from macaques, we validate that the region where frequency classification performance is significantly above chance overlaps core auditory fields, predominantly A1. Within this region, we measure tonotopic gradients and estimate the locations of the human homologues of the core auditory subfields A1 and R. Our results provide a functional rather than anatomical localizer for core AC. We posit that inter-individual variability in the layout of core AC might explain disagreements between results from previous neuroimaging and cytological studies.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.863
Threshold uncertainty score0.396

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 head0.024
GPT teacher head0.241
Teacher spread0.216 · 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 designBench or experimental
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

Citations55
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCerebral CortexSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207