MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Unique Cortical and Subcortical Activation Patterns for Different Conspecific Calls in Marmosets

2024· article· en· W4404177982 on OpenAlexafffund
Azadeh Jafari, Audrey Dureux, Alessandro Zanini, Ravi S. Menon, Kyle M. Gilbert, Stefan Everling

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neuroscience · 2024
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsRobarts Clinical TrialsWestern University
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health ResearchCanada First Research Excellence FundNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaGovernment of Canada
KeywordsNeuroscienceCallithrixPsychologyCommunicationBiologyPrimate

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

) is known for its highly vocal nature, displaying a diverse range of calls. Functional imaging in marmosets has shown that the processing of conspecific calls activates a brain network that includes fronto-temporal areas. It is currently unknown whether different call types activate the same or different networks. In this study, nine adult marmosets (four females) were exposed to four common vocalizations (phee, chatter, trill, and twitter), and their brain responses were recorded using event-related functional magnetic resonance imaging at 9.4 T. We found robust activations in the auditory cortices, encompassing core, belt, and parabelt regions, and in subcortical areas like the inferior colliculus, medial geniculate nucleus, and amygdala in response to these calls. Although a common network was engaged, distinct activity patterns were evident for different vocalizations that could be distinguished by a 3D convolutional neural network, indicating unique neural processing for each vocalization. Our findings also indicate the involvement of the cerebellum and medial prefrontal cortex in distinguishing particular vocalizations from others.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation 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 score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

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 head0.052
GPT teacher head0.303
Teacher spread0.250 · 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations5
Published2024
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of NeuroscienceSame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207