Neuronal oscillations as a mechanistic substrate of auditory temporal prediction
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuronal oscillations are comprised of rhythmic fluctuations of excitability that are synchronized in ensembles of neurons and thus function as temporal filters that dynamically organize sensory processing. When perception relies on anticipatory mechanisms, ongoing oscillations also provide a neurophysiological substrate for temporal prediction. In this article, we review evidence for this account with a focus on auditory perception. We argue that such "oscillatory temporal predictions" can selectively amplify neuronal sensitivity to inputs that occur in a predicted, task-relevant rhythm and optimize temporal selection. We elaborate this argument for a prototypic example, speech processing, where information is present at multiple time scales, with delta, theta, and low-gamma oscillations being specifically and simultaneously engaged, enabling multiplexing. We then consider the origin of temporal predictions, specifically the idea that the motor system is involved in the generation of such prior information. Finally, we place temporal predictions in the general context of internal models, discussing how they interact with feature-based or spatial predictions. We propose that complementary predictions interact synergistically according to a dominance hierarchy, shaping perception in the form of a multidimensional filter mechanism.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".