Linking Cortical Morphology to Interindividual Variability in Auditory Feedback Control of Vocal Production
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speakers regulate vocal motor behaviors in a compensatory manner when perceiving errors in auditory feedback. Little is known, however, about the source of interindividual variability that exists in the degree to which speakers compensate for perceived errors. The present study included 40 young adults to investigate whether individual differences in auditory integration for vocal pitch regulation, as indexed by vocal compensations for pitch perturbations in auditory feedback, can be predicted by cortical morphology as assessed by gray-matter volume, cortical thickness, and surface area in a whole-brain manner. The results showed that greater gray-matter volume in the left inferior parietal lobule and greater cortical thickness and surface area in the left superior/middle temporal gyrus, temporal pole, inferior/superior parietal lobule, and precuneus predicted larger vocal responses. Greater cortical thickness in the right inferior frontal gyrus and superior parietal lobule and surface area in the left precuneus and cuneus were significantly correlated with smaller magnitudes of vocal responses. These findings provide the first evidence that vocal compensations for feedback errors are predicted by the structural morphology of the frontal and tempo-parietal regions, and further our understanding of the neural basis that underlies interindividual variability in auditory-motor control of vocal production.
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 | 0.001 | 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".