The Neural Basis of Vocal Pitch Imitation in Humans
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Vocal imitation is a phenotype that is unique to humans among all primate species, and so an understanding of its neural basis is critical in explaining the emergence of both speech and song in human evolution. Two principal neural models of vocal imitation have emerged from a consideration of nonhuman animals. One hypothesis suggests that putative mirror neurons in the inferior frontal gyrus pars opercularis of Broca's area may be important for imitation. An alternative hypothesis derived from the study of songbirds suggests that the corticostriate motor pathway performs sensorimotor processes that are specific to vocal imitation. Using fMRI with a sparse event-related sampling design, we investigated the neural basis of vocal imitation in humans by comparing imitative vocal production of pitch sequences with both nonimitative vocal production and pitch discrimination. The strongest difference between these tasks was found in the putamen bilaterally, providing a striking parallel to the role of the analogous region in songbirds. Other areas preferentially activated during imitation included the orofacial motor cortex, Rolandic operculum, and SMA, which together outline the corticostriate motor loop. No differences were seen in the inferior frontal gyrus. The corticostriate system thus appears to be the central pathway for vocal imitation in humans, as predicted from an analogy with songbirds.
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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".