MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2121302205 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_00208

The Superior Temporal Sulcus Differentiates Communicative and Noncommunicative Auditory Signals

2012· article· en· W2121302205 on OpenAlexaff
Sarah Shultz, Athena Vouloumanos, Kevin A. Pelphrey

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSuperior temporal sulcusPsychologyLaughterCommunicationGazeVocal communicationVariety (cybernetics)Biological motionAutismNonverbal communicationPerceptionCognitive psychologyAudiologyNeuroscienceDevelopmental psychologyComputer science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Processing the vocalizations of conspecifics is critical for adaptive social interaction. A species-specific voice-selective region has been identified in the right STS that responds more strongly to human vocal sounds compared with a variety of nonvocal sounds. However, the STS also activates in response to a wide range of signals used in communication, such as eye gaze, biological motion, and speech. These findings raise the possibility that the voice-selective region of the STS may be especially sensitive to vocal sounds that are communicative, rather than to all human vocal sounds. Using fMRI, we demonstrate that the voice-selective region of the STS responds more strongly to communicative vocal sounds (such as speech and laughter) compared with noncommunicative vocal sounds (such as coughing and sneezing). The implications of these results for understanding the role of the STS in voice processing and in disorders of social communication, such as autism spectrum disorder, are discussed.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
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 score0.804
Threshold uncertainty score0.388

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0010.000
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 head0.039
GPT teacher head0.328
Teacher spread0.289 · 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

Citations38
Published2012
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207