MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2134669559 · doi:10.1162/0898929053747612

The Functional Organization of Auditory Working Memory as Revealed by fMRI

2005· article· en· W2134669559 on OpenAlexaff
Stephen R. Arnott, Cheryl L. Grady, Stephanie J. Hevenor, Simon J. Graham, Claude Alain

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsHealth Sciences CentreSunnybrook Health Science CentreBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPsychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingSuperior temporal sulcusSuperior temporal gyrusTemporal lobeWorking memoryAuditory cortexPosterior parietal cortexParietal lobeNeuroscienceContrast (vision)SulcusSound localizationAuditory perceptionAudiologyFunctional specializationPerceptionCognition

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Spatial and nonspatial auditory tasks preferentially recruit dorsal and ventral brain areas, respectively. However, the extent to which these auditory differences reflect specific aspects of mental processing has not been directly studied. In the present functional magnetic resonance imaging experiment, participants encoded and maintained either the location or the identity of a sound for a delay period of several seconds and then subsequently compared that information with a second sound. Relative to sound localization, sound identification was associated with greater hemodynamic activity in the left rostral superior temporal gyrus. In contrast, localizing sounds recruited greater activity in the parietal cortex, posterior temporal lobe, and superior frontal sulcus. The identification differences were most prominent during the early stage of the trial, whereas the location differences were most evident during the late (i.e., comparison) stage. Accordingly, our results suggest that auditory spatial and identity dissociations as revealed by functional imaging may be dependent to some degree on the type of processing being carried out. In addition, dorsolateral prefrontal and lateral superior parietal areas showed greater activity during the comparison as opposed to the earlier stage of the trial, regardless of the type of auditory task, consistent with results from visual working memory studies.

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)0.008
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: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.084
Threshold uncertainty score0.997

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.008
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
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 head0.032
GPT teacher head0.274
Teacher spread0.243 · 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

Citations113
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207