The Contribution of the Inferior Parietal Lobe to Auditory Spatial Working Memory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract There is strong evidence for dissociable “what” and “where” pathways in the auditory system, but considerable debate remains regarding the functional role of these pathways. The sensory-motor account of spatial processing posits that the dorsal brain regions (e.g., inferior parietal lobule, IPL) mediate sensory-motor integration required during “where” responding. An alternative account suggests that the IPL plays an important role in monitoring sound location. To test these two models, we used a mixed-block and event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) design in which participants responded to occasional repetitions in either sound location (“where” task) or semantic category (“what” task). The fMRI data were analyzed with the general linear model using separate regressors for representing sustained and transient activity in both listening conditions. This analysis revealed more sustained activity in right dorsal brain regions, including the IPL and superior frontal sulcus, during the location than during the category task, after accounting for transient activity related to target detection and the motor response. Conversely, we found greater sustained activity in the left superior temporal gyrus and left inferior frontal gyrus during the category task compared to the location task. Transient target-related activity in both tasks was associated with enhanced signal in the left pre- and postcentral gyrus, prefrontal cortex and bilateral IPL. These results suggest dual roles for the right IPL in auditory working memory—one involved in monitoring and updating sound location independent of motor responding, and another that underlies the integration of sensory and motor functions.
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 | 0.002 | 0.014 |
| 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".