MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3180181904 · doi:10.1162/jocn_a_01760

Sensory Attenuation of the Auditory P2 Differentiates Self- from Partner-Produced Sounds during Joint Action

2021· article· en· W3180181904 on OpenAlexafffund
Nicole K. Bolt, Janeen D. Loehr

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Cognitive Neuroscience · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicAction Observation and Synchronization
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Saskatchewan
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada
KeywordsSensory systemPsychologyPerceptionAuditory perceptionCognitive psychologyAction (physics)AudiologyCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Successful human interaction relies on people's ability to differentiate between the sensory consequences of their own and others' actions. Research in solo action contexts has identified sensory attenuation, that is, the selective perceptual or neural dampening of the sensory consequences of self-produced actions, as a potential marker of the distinction between self- and externally produced sensory consequences. However, very little research has examined whether sensory attenuation distinguishes self- from partner-produced sensory consequences in joint action contexts. The current study examined whether sensory attenuation of the auditory N1 or P2 ERPs distinguishes self- from partner-produced tones when pairs of people coordinate their actions to produce tone sequences that match a metronome pace. We did not find evidence of auditory N1 attenuation for either self- or partner-produced tones. Instead, the auditory P2 was attenuated for self-produced tones compared to partner-produced tones within the joint action. These findings indicate that self-specific attenuation of the auditory P2 differentiates the sensory consequences of one's own from others' actions during joint action. These findings also corroborate recent evidence that N1 attenuation may be driven by general rather than action-specific processes and support a recently proposed functional dissociation between auditory N1 and P2 attenuation.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.730
Threshold uncertainty score0.281

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.094
GPT teacher head0.335
Teacher spread0.241 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations22
Published2021
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Cognitive NeuroscienceSame topicAction Observation and SynchronizationFrench-language works237,207