Neural systems for evaluating speaker (Un)believability
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Our voice provides salient cues about how confident we sound, which promotes inferences about how believable we are. However, the neural mechanisms involved in these social inferences are largely unknown. Employing functional magnetic resonance imaging, we examined the brain networks and individual differences underlying the evaluation of speaker believability from vocal expressions. Participants (n = 26) listened to statements produced in a confident, unconfident, or "prosodically unmarked" (neutral) voice, and judged how believable the speaker was on a 4-point scale. We found frontal-temporal networks were activated for different levels of confidence, with the left superior and inferior frontal gyrus more activated for confident statements, the right superior temporal gyrus for unconfident expressions, and bilateral cerebellum for statements in a neutral voice. Based on listener's believability judgment, we observed increased activation in the right superior parietal lobule (SPL) associated with higher believability, while increased left posterior central gyrus (PoCG) was associated with less believability. A psychophysiological interaction analysis found that the anterior cingulate cortex and bilateral caudate were connected to the right SPL when higher believability judgments were made, while supplementary motor area was connected with the left PoCG when lower believability judgments were made. Personal characteristics, such as interpersonal reactivity and the individual tendency to trust others, modulated the brain activations and the functional connectivity when making believability judgments. In sum, our data pinpoint neural mechanisms that are involved when inferring one's believability from a speaker's voice and establish ways that these mechanisms are modulated by individual characteristics of a listener. Hum Brain Mapp 38:3732-3749, 2017. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
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 | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".