Visual Stimuli Modulate Local Field Potentials But Drive No High-Frequency Activity in Human Auditory Cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neuroimaging studies suggest cross-sensory visual influences in human auditory cortices (ACs). Whether these influences reflect active visual processing in human ACs, which drives neuronal firing and concurrent broadband high-frequency activity (BHFA; >70 Hz), or whether they merely modulate sound processing is still debatable. Here, we presented auditory, visual, and audiovisual stimuli to 16 participants (7 women, 9 men) with stereo-EEG depth electrodes implanted near ACs for presurgical monitoring. Anatomically normalized group analyses were facilitated by inverse modeling of intracranial source currents. Analyses of intracranial event-related potentials (iERPs) suggested cross-sensory responses to visual stimuli in ACs, which lagged the earliest auditory responses by several tens of milliseconds. Visual stimuli also modulated the phase of intrinsic low-frequency oscillations and triggered 15-30 Hz event-related desynchronization in ACs. However, BHFA, a putative correlate of neuronal firing, was not significantly increased in ACs after visual stimuli, not even when they coincided with auditory stimuli. Intracranial recordings demonstrate cross-sensory modulations, but no indication of active visual processing in human ACs.
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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".