Training neural networks to recognize speech increased their correspondence to the human auditory pathway but did not yield a shared hierarchy of acoustic features
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract The correspondence between the activity of artificial neurons in convolutional neural networks (CNNs) trained to recognize objects in images and neural activity collected throughout the primate visual system has been well documented. Shallower layers of CNNs are typically more similar to early visual areas and deeper layers tend to be more similar to later visual areas, providing evidence for a shared representational hierarchy. This phenomenon has not been thoroughly studied in the auditory domain. Here, we compared the representations of CNNs trained to recognize speech (triphone recognition) to 7-Tesla fMRI activity collected throughout the human auditory pathway, including subcortical and cortical regions, while participants listened to speech. We found no evidence for a shared representational hierarchy of acoustic speech features. Instead, all auditory regions of interest were most similar to a single layer of the CNNs: the first fully-connected layer. This layer sits at the boundary between the relatively task-general intermediate layers and the highly task-specific final layers. This suggests that alternative architectural designs and/or training objectives may be needed to achieve fine-grained layer-wise correspondence with the human auditory pathway. Highlights Trained CNNs more similar to auditory fMRI activity than untrained No evidence of a shared representational hierarchy for acoustic features All ROIs were most similar to the first fully-connected layer CNN performance on speech recognition task positively associated with fmri similarity
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".