Exploring the cerebral substrate of voice perception in primate brains
Bibliographic record
Abstract
One can consider human language to be the Swiss army knife of the vast domain of animal communication. There is now growing evidence suggesting that this technology may have emerged from already operational material instead of being a sudden innovation. Sharing ideas and thoughts with conspecifics via language constitutes an amazing ability, but what value would it hold if our conspecifics were not first detected and recognized? Conspecific voice (CV) perception is fundamental to communication and widely shared across the animal kingdom. Two questions that arise then are: is this apparently shared ability reflected in common cerebral substrate? And, how has this substrate evolved? The paper addresses these questions by examining studies on the cerebral basis of CV perception in humans' closest relatives, non-human primates. Neuroimaging studies, in particular, suggest the existence of a 'voice patch system', a network of interconnected cortical areas that can provide a common template for the cerebral processing of CV in primates. This article is part of the theme issue 'What can animal communication teach us about human language?'
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 teacher head, 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".