Rapid Tuning of Auditory “What” and “Where” Pathways by Training
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Behavioral improvement within the first hour of training is commonly explained as procedural learning (i.e., strategy changes resulting from task familiarization). However, it may additionally reflect a rapid adjustment of the perceptual and/or attentional system in a goal-directed task. In support of this latter hypothesis, we show feature-specific gains in performance for groups of participants briefly trained to use either a spectral or spatial difference between 2 vowels presented simultaneously during a vowel identification task. In both groups, the neuromagnetic activity measured during the vowel identification task following training revealed source activity in auditory cortices, prefrontal, inferior parietal, and motor areas. More importantly, the contrast between the 2 groups revealed a striking double dissociation in which listeners trained on spectral or spatial cues showed higher source activity in ventral ("what") and dorsal ("where") brain areas, respectively. These feature-specific effects indicate that brief training can implicitly bias top-down processing to a trained acoustic cue and induce a rapid recalibration of the ventral and dorsal auditory streams during speech segregation and identification.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".