MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4385010274 · doi:10.1016/j.bandl.2023.105304

Watching talking faces: The development of cortical representation of visual syllables in infancy

2023· article· en· W4385010274 on OpenAlexaff
Aleksandra Anna Wiktoria Dopierała, David López Pérez, Evelyne Mercure, Agnieszka Pluta, Anna Malinowska‐Korczak, Samuel Evans, Tomasz Wolak, Przemysław Tomalski

Bibliographic record

VenueBrain and Language · 2023
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsUniversity of British Columbia
FundersInstitute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of SciencesUniwersytet WarszawskiPakistan Academy of SciencesNarodowe Centrum Nauki
KeywordsPsychologyRepresentation (politics)Cognitive psychologyCommunicationDevelopmental psychologyCognitive science

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

From birth, we perceive speech by hearing and seeing people talk. In adults cortical representations of visual speech are processed in the putative temporal visual speech area (TVSA), but it remains unknown how these representations develop. We measured infants' cortical responses to silent visual syllables and non-communicative mouth movements using functional Near-Infrared Spectroscopy. Our results indicate that cortical specialisation for visual speech may emerge during infancy. The putative TVSA was active to both visual syllables and gurning around 5 months of age, and more active to gurning than to visual syllables around 10 months of age. Multivariate pattern analysis classification of distinct cortical responses to visual speech and gurning was successful at 10, but not at 5 months of age. These findings imply that cortical representations of visual speech change between 5 and 10 months of age, showing that the putative TVSA is initially broadly tuned and becomes selective with age.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.848
Threshold uncertainty score0.550

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.045
GPT teacher head0.403
Teacher spread0.358 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations3
Published2023
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueBrain and LanguageSame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207