MétaCan
Menu
← Back to cohort

Detecting auditory temporal regularities: electrophysiological index of tracking and identification of disambiguating information

2023· preprint· en· W4383499716 on OpenAlexaff
Amour Simal, Robert J. Zatorre, Pierre Jolicœur

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsMcGill UniversityUniversité de Montréal
Fundersnot available
KeywordsTone (literature)ElectrophysiologySet (abstract data type)Task (project management)ElectroencephalographyComputer scienceSpeech recognitionPattern recognition (psychology)PsychologyArtificial intelligenceCommunicationNeuroscience

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Learning, and detection of regularities allows us to make predictions about our environment and process stimuli more efficiently. Using EEG, we found an electrophysiological signature linked to how the brain uses and interprets auditory information in the time domain. We used sequences of five tones with different pitches, with one of three distinct temporal regularities, using a short-long-short-long, long-short-long-short, or isochronous ISI pattern. They were designed so the second tone carried temporal-sequence information, by being presented after a short, medium, or long ISI, allowing recognition of the pattern. Participants heard two tone sequences with the same temporal regularity and had to indicate if the tone pitches were identical. In one experiment, the three types of regularities were randomly intermixed, whereas they were blocked in a control experiment. A frontal and frontocentral positivity increased for the first set of the first experiment (when temporal pattern was not previously known), compared to that same set in the control experiment (pattern known), starting around the earliest time the second tone could be presented, and peaking shortly after actual tone onset. Although these temporal patterns were task irrelevant, and most participants were unaware of them when asked, our results suggest the brain disambiguates its variable environment based on the earliest available information, and that it does so rapidly, pre-attentively, and automatically.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.067
GPT teacher head0.305
Teacher spread0.238 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
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

Citations0
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicNeuroscience and Music Perception→French-language works237,207→