Perceiving Biological Motion: Dissociating Visible Speech from Walking
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuropsychological research suggests that the neural system underlying visible speech on the basis of kinematics is distinct from the system underlying visible speech of static images of the face and identifying whole-body actions from kinematics alone. Functional magnetic resonance imaging was used to identify the neural systems underlying point-light visible speech, as well as perception of a walking/jumping point-light body, to determine if they are independent. Although both point-light stimuli produced overlapping activation in the right middle occipital gyrus encompassing area KO and the right inferior temporal gyrus, they also activated distinct areas. Perception of walking biological motion activated a medial occipital area along the lingual gyrus close to the cuneus border, and the ventromedial frontal cortex, neither of which was activated by visible speech biological motion. In contrast, perception of visible speech biological motion activated right V5 and a network of motor-related areas (Broca's area, PM, M1, and supplementary motor area (SMA)), none of which were activated by walking biological motion. Many of the areas activated by seeing visible speech biological motion are similar to those activated while speech-reading from an actual face, with the exception of M1 and medial SMA. The motor-related areas found to be active during point-light visible speech are consistent with recent work characterizing the human "mirror" system (Rizzolatti, Fadiga, Gallese, & Fogassi, 1996).
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".