Beyond sense-specific processing: decoding texture in the brain from touch and sonified movement
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Texture, a fundamental object attribute, is perceived through multisensory information including touch and auditory cues. Coherent perceptions may rely on shared texture representations across different senses in the brain. To test this hypothesis, we delivered haptic textures coupled with a sound synthesizer to generate real-time textural sounds. Participants completed roughness estimation tasks with haptic, auditory, or bimodal cues in an MRI scanner. Somatosensory, auditory, and visual cortices were all activated during haptic and auditory exploration, challenging the traditional view that primary sensory cortices are sense-specific. Furthermore, audio-tactile integration was found in secondary somatosensory (S2) and primary auditory cortices. Multivariate analyses revealed shared spatial activity patterns in primary motor and somatosensory cortices, for discriminating texture across both modalities. This study indicates that primary areas and S2 have a versatile representation of multisensory textures, which has significant implications for how the brain processes multisensory cues to interact more efficiently with our environment.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".