MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4406732132 · doi:10.1038/s42003-024-07434-5

Neural processing of naturalistic audiovisual events in space and time

2025· article· en· W4406732132 on OpenAlexafffund
Yalda Mohsenzadeh

Bibliographic record

VenueCommunications Biology · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldPsychology
TopicMultisensory perception and integration
Canadian institutionsVector InstituteWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaCanada First Research Excellence Fund
KeywordsComputer scienceSpacetimeNaturalismSpace (punctuation)Cognitive sciencePsychologyPhysics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Our brain seamlessly integrates distinct sensory information to form a coherent percept. However, when real-world audiovisual events are perceived, the specific brain regions and timings for processing different levels of information remain less investigated. To address that, we curated naturalistic videos and recorded functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) and electroencephalography (EEG) data when participants viewed videos with accompanying sounds. Our findings reveal early asymmetrical cross-modal interaction, with acoustic information represented in both early visual and auditory regions, while visual information only identified in visual cortices. The visual and auditory features were processed with similar onset but different temporal dynamics. High-level categorical and semantic information emerged in multisensory association areas later in time, indicating late cross-modal integration and its distinct role in converging conceptual information. Comparing neural representations to a two-branch deep neural network model highlighted the necessity of early cross-modal connections to build a biologically plausible model of audiovisual perception. With EEG-fMRI fusion, we provided a spatiotemporally resolved account of neural activity during the processing of naturalistic audiovisual stimuli.

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 distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.832
Threshold uncertainty score0.208

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

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)0.0000.000

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 head0.064
GPT teacher head0.441
Teacher spread0.377 · 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 teacher head, 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

Citations6
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueCommunications BiologySame topicMultisensory perception and integrationFrench-language works237,207