Neural Basis of Sensorimotor Plasticity in Speech Motor Adaptation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
When we speak, we get correlated sensory feedback from speech sounds and from the muscles and soft tissues of the vocal tract. Here we dissociate the contributions of auditory and somatosensory feedback to identify brain networks that underlie the somatic contribution to speech motor learning. The technique uses a robotic device that selectively alters somatosensory inputs in combination with resting-state fMRI scans that reveal learning-related changes in functional connectivity. A partial correlation analysis is used to identify connectivity changes that are not explained by the time course of activity in any other learning-related areas. This analysis revealed changes related to behavioral improvements in movement and separately, to changes in auditory perception: Speech motor adaptation itself was associated with connectivity changes that were primarily in non-motor areas of brain, specifically, to a strengthening of connectivity between auditory and somatosensory cortex and between presupplementary motor area and the inferior parietal lobule. In contrast, connectively changes associated with alterations to auditory perception were restricted to speech motor areas, specifically, primary motor cortex and inferior frontal gyrus. Overall, our findings show that during adaptation, somatosensory inputs result in a broad range of changes in connectivity in areas associated with speech motor control and learning.
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) | 0.001 | 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".