Cortical–subcortical interactions underlie processing of auditory predictions measured with 7T fMRI
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Perception integrates both sensory inputs and internal models of the environment. In the auditory domain, predictions play a critical role because of the temporal nature of sounds. However, the precise contribution of cortical and subcortical structures in these processes and their interaction remain unclear. It is also unclear whether these brain interactions are specific to abstract rules or if they also underlie the predictive coding of local features. We used high-field 7T functional magnetic resonance imaging to investigate interactions between cortical and subcortical areas during auditory predictive processing. Volunteers listened to tone sequences in an oddball paradigm where the predictability of the deviant was manipulated. Perturbations in periodicity were also introduced to test the specificity of the response. Results indicate that both cortical and subcortical auditory structures encode high-order predictive dynamics, with the effect of predictability being strongest in the auditory cortex. These predictive dynamics were best explained by modeling a top-down information flow, in contrast to unpredicted responses. No error signals were observed to deviations of periodicity, suggesting that these responses are specific to abstract rule violations. Our results support the idea that the high-order predictive dynamics observed in subcortical areas propagate from the auditory cortex.
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".