Speech Perception under the Tent: A Domain-general Predictive Role for the Cerebellum
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The role of the cerebellum in speech perception remains a mystery. Given its uniform architecture, we tested the hypothesis that it implements a domain-general predictive mechanism whose role in speech is determined by connectivity. We collated all neuroimaging studies reporting cerebellar activity in the Neurosynth database (n = 8206). From this set, we found all studies involving passive speech and sound perception (n = 72, 64% speech, 12.5% sounds, 12.5% music, and 11% tones) and speech production and articulation (n = 175). Standard and coactivation neuroimaging meta-analyses were used to compare cerebellar and associated cortical activations between passive perception and production. We found distinct regions of perception- and production-related activity in the cerebellum and regions of perception-production overlap. Each of these regions had distinct patterns of cortico-cerebellar connectivity. To test for domain-generality versus specificity, we identified all psychological and task-related terms in the Neurosynth database that predicted activity in cerebellar regions associated with passive perception and production. Regions in the cerebellum activated by speech perception were associated with domain-general terms related to prediction. One hallmark of predictive processing is metabolic savings (i.e., decreases in neural activity when events are predicted). To test the hypothesis that the cerebellum plays a predictive role in speech perception, we examined cortical activation between studies reporting cerebellar activation and those without cerebellar activation during speech perception. When the cerebellum was active during speech perception, there was far less cortical activation than when it was inactive. The results suggest that the cerebellum implements a domain-general mechanism related to prediction during speech perception.
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 | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".