Transformation of Speech Sequences in Human Sensorimotor Circuits
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Summary After we listen to a series of words, we can silently replay them in our mind. Does this mental replay involve a re-activation of our original perceptual representations? We recorded electrocorticographic (ECoG) activity across the lateral cerebral cortex as people heard and then mentally rehearsed spoken sentences. For each region, we tested whether silent rehearsal of sentences involved reactivation of sentence-specific representations established during perception or transformation to a distinct representation. In sensorimotor and premotor cortex, we observed reliable and temporally precise responses to speech; these patterns transformed to distinct sentence-specific representations during mental rehearsal. In contrast, we observed slower and less reliable responses in prefrontal and temporoparietal cortex; these higher-order representations, which were sensitive to sentence semantics, were shared across perception and rehearsal. The mental rehearsal of natural speech involves the transformation of time-resolved speech representations in sensorimotor and premotor cortex, combined with diffuse reactivation of higher-order semantic representations. Conflict of interest The authors declare no competing financial interests.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".