The left inferior frontal gyrus is causally linked to vocal feedback control: evidence from high-definition transcranial alternating current stimulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Current models of speech motor control propose a role for the left inferior frontal gyrus (IFG) in feedforward control of speech production. There is evidence, however, that has implicated the functional relevance of the left IFG for the neuromotor processing of vocal feedback errors. The present event-related potential (ERP) study examined whether the left IFG is causally linked to auditory feedback control of vocal production with high-definition transcranial alternating current stimulation (HD-tACS). After receiving active or sham HD-tACS over the left IFG at 6 or 70 Hz, 20 healthy adults vocalized the vowel sounds while hearing their voice unexpectedly pitch-shifted by ±200 cents. The results showed that 6 or 70 Hz HD-tACS over the left IFG led to larger magnitudes and longer latencies of vocal compensations for pitch perturbations paralleled by larger ERP P2 responses than sham HD-tACS. Moreover, there was a lack of frequency specificity that showed no significant differences between 6 and 70 Hz HD-tACS. These findings provide first causal evidence linking the left IFG to vocal pitch regulation, suggesting that the left IFG is an important part of the feedback control network that mediates vocal compensations for auditory feedback errors.
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".