A meta‐analysis of letter–sound integration: Assimilation and accommodation in the superior temporal gyrus
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite being a relatively new cultural phenomenon, the ability to perform letter-sound integration is readily acquired even though it has not had time to evolve in the brain. Leading theories of how the brain accommodates literacy acquisition include the neural recycling hypothesis and the assimilation-accommodation hypothesis. The neural recycling hypothesis proposes that a new cultural skill is developed by "invading" preexisting neural structures to support a similar cognitive function, while the assimilation-accommodation hypothesis holds that a new cognitive skill relies on direct invocation of preexisting systems (assimilation) and adds brain areas based on task requirements (accommodation). Both theories agree that letter-sound integration may be achieved by reusing pre-existing functionally similar neural bases, but differ in their proposals of how this occurs. We examined the evidence for each hypothesis by systematically comparing the similarities and differences between letter-sound integration and two other types of preexisting and functionally similar audiovisual (AV) processes, namely object-sound and speech-sound integration, by performing an activation likelihood estimation (ALE) meta-analysis. All three types of AV integration recruited the left posterior superior temporal gyrus (STG), while speech-sound integration additionally activated the bilateral middle STG and letter-sound integration directly invoked the AV areas involved in speech-sound integration. These findings suggest that letter-sound integration may reuse the STG for speech-sound and object-sound integration through an assimilation-accommodation mechanism.
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 | 0.005 | 0.015 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.005 | 0.011 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.003 | 0.005 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 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".