A comparison of multisensory features of two auditory cortical areas: primary (A1) and higher-order dorsal zone (DZ)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
From myriads of ongoing stimuli, the brain creates a fused percept of the environment. This process, which culminates in perceptual binding, is presumed to occur through the operations of multisensory neurons that occur throughout the brain. However, because different brain areas receive different inputs and have different cytoarchitechtonics, it would be expected that local multisensory features would also vary across regions. The present study investigated that hypothesis using multiple single-unit recordings from anesthetized cats in response to controlled, electronically-generated separate and combined auditory, visual, and somatosensory stimulation. These results were used to compare the multisensory features of neurons in cat primary auditory cortex (A1) with those identified in the nearby higher-order auditory region, the Dorsal Zone (DZ). Both regions exhibited the same forms of multisensory neurons, albeit in different proportions. Multisensory neurons exhibiting excitatory or inhibitory properties occurred in similar proportions in both areas. Also, multisensory neurons in both areas expressed similar levels of multisensory integration. Because responses to auditory cues alone were so similar to those that included non-auditory stimuli, it is proposed that this effect represents a mechanism by which multisensory neurons subserve the process of perceptual binding.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 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".