MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2108827278 · doi:10.1093/scan/nst124

Perception of affective and linguistic prosody: an ALE meta-analysis of neuroimaging studies

2013· review· en· W2108827278 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueSocial Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience · 2013
Typereview
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcMaster University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsPsychologyNeuroimagingProsodyPerceptionLinguistic analysisCognitive psychologyLinguisticsMeta-analysisNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Prosody refers to the melodic and rhythmic aspects of speech. Two forms of prosody are typically distinguished: 'affective prosody' refers to the expression of emotion in speech, whereas 'linguistic prosody' relates to the intonation of sentences, including the specification of focus within sentences and stress within polysyllabic words. While these two processes are united by their use of vocal pitch modulation, they are functionally distinct. In order to examine the localization and lateralization of speech prosody in the brain, we performed two voxel-based meta-analyses of neuroimaging studies of the perception of affective and linguistic prosody. There was substantial sharing of brain activations between analyses, particularly in right-hemisphere auditory areas. However, a major point of divergence was observed in the inferior frontal gyrus: affective prosody was more likely to activate Brodmann area 47, while linguistic prosody was more likely to activate the ventral part of area 44.

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.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow), Science and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Meta-analysis · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Review · Consensus signal: Review
Teacher disagreement score0.924
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0030.001
Bibliometrics0.0010.003
Science and technology studies0.0010.004
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.289
GPT teacher head0.449
Teacher spread0.160 · 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