Tactile–Auditory Shape Learning Engages the Lateral Occipital Complex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Shape is an object property that inherently exists in vision and touch, and is processed in part by the lateral occipital complex (LOC). Recent studies have shown that shape can be artificially coded by sound using sensory substitution algorithms and learned with behavioral training. This finding offers a unique opportunity to test intermodal generalizability of the LOC beyond the sensory modalities in which shape is naturally perceived. Therefore, we investigated the role of the LOC in processing of shape by examining neural activity associated with learning tactile-shape-coded auditory information. Nine blindfolded sighted people learned the tactile-auditory relationship between raised abstract shapes and their corresponding shape-coded sounds over 5 d of training. Using functional magnetic resonance imaging, subjects were scanned before and after training during a task in which they first listened to a shape-coded sound transformation, then touched an embossed shape, and responded whether or not the tactile stimulus matched the auditory stimulus in terms of shape. We found that behavioral scores improved after training and that the LOC was commonly activated during the auditory and tactile conditions both before and after training. However, no significant training-related change was observed in magnitude or size of LOC activity; rather, the auditory cortex and LOC showed strengthened functional connectivity after training. These findings suggest that the LOC is available to different sensory systems for shape processing and that auditory-tactile sensory substitution training leads to neural changes allowing more direct or efficient access to this site by the auditory system.
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 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".