The Neural Processes Underpinning Flexible Semantic Retrieval in Visual and Auditory Modalities
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Contemporary accounts of semantic cognition propose that conceptual knowledge is supported by a heteromodal conceptual store and controlled retrieval processes. However, it remains unclear how the neural basis of semantic control varies across modalities. Recent models of cortical organisation suggest that control networks are distributed along a unimodal-to-heteromodal cortical gradient, with the semantic control network (SCN) located in more heteromodal cortex than the domain-general multiple demand network (MDN). We used fMRI to examine how these networks respond to semantic control demands in visual and auditory tasks. Participants judged the semantic relatedness of spoken and written word pairs. On half of the trials, a task cue specified the semantic feature to guide retrieval; on the remaining trials, no such cue was given. The SCN showed greater activation when task knowledge was available, consistent with a role in the top-down control of semantic retrieval across modalities. In contrast, the MDN showed greater activation for spoken words, likely reflecting increased demands in speech perception. These findings demonstrate a dissociation between control networks, with SCN involvement modulated by task structure and MDN activity influenced by perceptual difficulty.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".