Towards a somatosensory theory of speech perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Speech perception is known to be a multimodal process, relying not only on auditory input but also on the visual system and possibly on the motor system as well. To date there has been little work on the potential involvement of the somatosensory system in speech perception. In the present review, we identify the somatosensory system as another contributor to speech perception. First, we argue that evidence in favor of a motor contribution to speech perception can just as easily be interpreted as showing somatosensory involvement. Second, physiological and neuroanatomical evidence for auditory-somatosensory interactions across the auditory hierarchy indicates the availability of a neural infrastructure that supports somatosensory involvement in auditory processing in general. Third, there is accumulating evidence for somatosensory involvement in the context of speech specifically. In particular, tactile stimulation modifies speech perception, and speech auditory input elicits activity in somatosensory cortical areas. Moreover, speech sounds can be decoded from activity in somatosensory cortex; lesions to this region affect perception, and vowels can be identified based on somatic input alone. We suggest that the somatosensory involvement in speech perception derives from the somatosensory-auditory pairing that occurs during speech production and learning. By bringing together findings from a set of studies that have not been previously linked, the present article identifies the somatosensory system as a presently unrecognized contributor to 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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.039 | 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".