MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Music and language side by side in the brain: a PET study of the generation of melodies and sentences

2006· article· en· W2168106399 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEuropean Journal of Neuroscience · 2006
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsSimon Fraser University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMelodyPsychologyPlanum temporaleLateralization of brain functionSupplementary motor areaInsulaSMA*Temporal cortexInferior frontal gyrusCognitive psychologyFunctional magnetic resonance imagingNeuroscienceComputer scienceArt

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Parallel generational tasks for music and language were compared using positron emission tomography. Amateur musicians vocally improvised melodic or linguistic phrases in response to unfamiliar, auditorily presented melodies or phrases. Core areas for generating melodic phrases appeared to be in left Brodmann area (BA) 45, right BA 44, bilateral temporal planum polare, lateral BA 6, and pre-SMA. Core areas for generating sentences seemed to be in bilateral posterior superior and middle temporal cortex (BA 22, 21), left BA 39, bilateral superior frontal (BA 8, 9), left inferior frontal (BA 44, 45), anterior cingulate, and pre-SMA. Direct comparisons of the two tasks revealed activations in nearly identical functional brain areas, including the primary motor cortex, supplementary motor area, Broca's area, anterior insula, primary and secondary auditory cortices, temporal pole, basal ganglia, ventral thalamus, and posterior cerebellum. Most of the differences between melodic and sentential generation were seen in lateralization tendencies, with the language task favouring the left hemisphere. However, many of the activations for each modality were bilateral, and so there was significant overlap. While clarification of this overlapping activity awaits higher-resolution measurements and interventional assessments, plausible accounts for it include component sharing, interleaved representations, and adaptive coding. With these and related findings, we outline a comparative model of shared, parallel, and distinctive features of the neural systems supporting music and language. The model assumes that music and language show parallel combinatoric generativity for complex sound structures (phonology) but distinctly different informational content (semantics).

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.

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 score0.907
Threshold uncertainty score0.240

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
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 head0.055
GPT teacher head0.273
Teacher spread0.218 · 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