Audiovisual processing of affective and linguistic prosody : an event-related fMRI study
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study was designed to clarify some of the issues surrounding the nature of hemispheric contributions to the processing of emotional and linguistic prosody, as well as to examine the relative contribution of different sensory modalities in processing prosodic structures. Ten healthy young participants were presented with semantically neutral sentences expressing affective or linguistic prosody solely through the use of non-verbal cues (intonation, facial expressions) while undergoing tMRI. The sentences were presented under auditory, visual, as well as audio-visual conditions. The emotional prosody task required participants to identify the emotion of the utterance (happy or angry) and the linguistic prosody task required participants to identify the type of utterance (question or statement). Core peri-sylvian, frontal and occipital areas were activated bilaterally in all conditions suggesting that processing of affective and linguistic prosodic structures is supported by overlapping networks. The strength of these activations may, in part, be modulated by task and modality of presentation.
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 imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".