Motor origin of temporal predictions in auditory attention
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In behavior, action and perception are inherently interdependent. However, the actual mechanistic contributions of the motor system to sensory processing are unknown. We present neurophysiological evidence that the motor system is involved in predictive timing, a brain function that aligns temporal fluctuations of attention with the timing of events in a task-relevant stream, thus facilitating sensory selection and optimizing behavior. In a magnetoencephalography experiment involving auditory temporal attention, participants had to disentangle two streams of sound on the unique basis of endogenous temporal cues. We show that temporal predictions are encoded by interdependent delta and beta neural oscillations originating from the left sensorimotor cortex, and directed toward auditory regions. We also found that overt rhythmic movements improved the quality of temporal predictions and sharpened the temporal selection of relevant auditory information. This latter behavioral and functional benefit was associated with increased signaling of temporal predictions in right-lateralized frontoparietal associative regions. In sum, this study points at a covert form of auditory active sensing. Our results emphasize the key role of motor brain areas in providing contextual temporal information to sensory regions, driving perceptual and behavioral selection.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| 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".