Rapid Tuning of Auditory “What” and “Where” Pathways by Training

Du, He, Arnott, Ross, Wu, Li, Alain · Cerebral Cortex (New York, NY) · 2015 · neuroscience · 10.1093/cercor/bht251 · record Du2015-rapid-tuning-of-auditory-what-and-where-path
tag layer · index · concepts · authors · עברית

Where this record's text came from. faceted 2026-08 by reading the locally held text (html); every evidence string verified as an exact substring of that text before merging. method is tagged "meg" rather than the listed "electrophysiology" because magnetoencephalography is a magnetic, not electrical, recording and the paper's design is neuroimaging in the same sense as the listed "fmri"; the study also contains a behavioural training experiment (45-min training with accuracy measures), so a secondary behavioural-experiment tag would be defensible. The article text after the marker begins with the PMC site chrome and author block; all quoted sentences come from the Abstract, Introduction, Methods, Results or Discussion proper. No external replication of the double dissociation is claimed in the paper, hence untested. 2026-08-13 schema-0.3 pass: every quote verified as an exact substring of the staged text and anchored at merge time; concept terms verified present; every edge endpoint an existing node.

How to read this page. The article itself is not reproduced here — this paper is not cleared for redistribution, so what follows is the tag layer alone. The evidence sentences are withheld with the article. The table at the foot lists every tag the record carries; each row names the facet it belongs to, and the whose words column says whether the tag records the paper's own wording or the tagger's sentence about the paper. Every tag links to each other paper in the corpus carrying it. The machine-readable edition of the same thing is the TEI file beside this one, where the tags live in standOff, and the article is at its publisher via the link below. When we have changed our mind. Some entries in the table begin with a word in capitals and the reason for it. EVIDENCE CORRECTED — the finding still stands, but we had quoted the wrong sentence from the paper, and the quotation has been replaced with the right one. RETRACTED — the entry itself was wrong; it stays on the page, marked, with the reason, rather than being deleted. WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below. Each mark carries its own reason, in brackets, because the reasons differ from one entry to the next. An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason. A line reading Audit and a date is a later re-reading of the entry against its whole sentence: DOUBTFUL means it was kept, and the reason says what is loose about it. Quotation marks inside the tagger's sentence. Where a tag is the tagger's own sentence, a phrase in quotation marks inside it is borrowed from the paper — the tagger's wording around it is not. The paper's own sentence is the evidence quote for that row; on this page it is withheld with the article, and the article is at its publisher. Nothing inside quotation marks anywhere on this page is ours: if it is quoted, it is the paper's. Whose words a concept carries. A concept entry records a term the paper itself uses, so the term, the sense given for it, and its evidence are the paper's own words, quoted where the paper fixes them. This is the opposite of a sense entry in the tag table, which is the tagger's sentence about how the paper uses a term. Where a concept entry could not be grounded in the paper's words, the entry says so on its own row.

Other fields define these differently the same word, defined another way in another discipline
attention 36 fields · repetition priming 2 fields

Tags on this paper

Every tag the record carries, each linking to every other paper in the corpus that carries it. A tag appears here whether or not its words occur in the article — the spans below are only the ones a sentence in this paper licenses. Of the 17 concept tags on this paper, none is grounded in a quoted sentence. All carry the tagger's gloss of what the term means in this paper, which is not something the article can license.

procedural learning perceptual sensitivity double dissociation ventral dorsal IFG IPL STG concurrent-vowel HRTF MEG ER-SAM repetition priming gain in accuracy semitone attention receptive fields the training session acts as a priming episode that biases top-down attention toward the trained acoustic cue, so that cue is processed as more salient in the later untrained test the implicit attentional bias makes the trained spectral or spatial difference more salient than the untrained one, which differentially recruits the ventral or dorsal auditory stream trial type synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM) training group source activity bottom-up sensory input HRTF coefficient ANOVA post hoc test Bonferroni post hoc tests Monte Carlo simulation (multiple-comparison correction) correlation Pearson correlation standard error of the mean repeated-measures ANOVA paired t -tests family-wise corrected electrophysiology

Method, as described: meg

Legend

second reading	`alternatives`	an independent re-reading of a facet, recorded whether or not it agrees
relation to other work	`claim_relations`	how this paper stands to another: agrees, contradicts, extends, qualifies
claim type	`claim_type`	the shape of the claim: existence, mechanism, method, critique, prediction, null
concept edge	`concept_edges`	an asserted relation between two concepts, with the sentence asserting it
content tag	`content_tags`	a finding, definition, quantity, statistic or variable named in the paper
contribution	`contribution`	what the paper claims to add
control	`controls`	an experiment run to eliminate a rival explanation
limitation	`limitations`	what the paper says its evidence cannot support
mechanism	`mechanisms`	how the reported effect is said to come about
method	`method`	how the paper produced its evidence
object of study	`object_of_study`	what the paper is about — the thing it investigates
phenomenon	`phenomenon`	the effect or regularity under study
research question	`research_question`	the question the paper sets itself
sense	`senses`	a distinct use of a term, quoted where the paper fixes it
transfer	`transfers`	a method or concept carried in from another field

The paper

The full text is not reproduced here. This article is not cleared for redistribution, so the page carries the tag layer only. Its evidence sentences are withheld; the grounding status remains with each tag, and the article itself is at https://doi.org/10.1093/cercor/bht251. The reading view exists for the papers whose licence permits it.

Every tag on this page

alternatives 2 · claim_relations 7 · claim_type 1 · concept_edges 5 · content_tags 58 · contribution 1 · controls 3 · limitations 6 · mechanisms 6 · method 1 · object_of_study 1 · phenomenon 1 · research_question 1 · senses 5 · transfers 3

Relations on this page carry a quotation for the claim. Where a relation was separately evidenced — and so tested against the vocabulary for its type — the row says so; none of 5 relations here carry that mark. The rest are the tagger’s reading of the sentence quoted beside them.

facet	tag	field	conf.	whose words
object_of_study	whether improvement in the first hour of training is task familiarisation or a real change in what the perceptual system is tuned to Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`object_of_study`		the paper's words
research_question	whether 45 minutes of training on one acoustic cue produces gains and brain activity specific to that cue rather than general to the task Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`research_question`		the paper's words
contribution	a double dissociation in which listeners trained on pitch or on location gain specifically from that cue and recruit ventral or dorsal areas respectively, with the stimuli identical across groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`contribution`		the paper's words
claim_type	existence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_type`		the paper's words
phenomenon	rapid feature-specific auditory perceptual learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`phenomenon`		the paper's words
method	electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: electrophysiology	`method`		the paper's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the training session acts as a priming episode that biases top-down attention toward the trained acoustic cue, so that cue is processed as more salient in the later untrained test	`mechanisms[0]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	mechanisms Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: the implicit attentional bias makes the trained spectral or spatial difference more salient than the untrained one, which differentially recruits the ventral or dorsal auditory stream	`mechanisms[1]`		the tagger's words
mechanisms	training may act as a priming task that biases attention to the trained cue, making it more salient later even without instruction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[2]`	0.9	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the selectivity survives the delay to the MEG session and the absence of feedback there Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	training changes how the two cues combine, not just how well each is used Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
mechanisms	the animal precedent is that receptive fields shift within minutes of a task, and much less when the same sounds are heard passively Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`mechanisms[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	A repetition/familiarity effect cannot be fully excluded as a partial cause of the behavioural and neural changes. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[0]`		the tagger's words
limitations	The study cannot say whether these rapid source-activity changes are precursors of longer-term plasticity; that needs combined MEG and fMRI work. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[1]`		the tagger's words
limitations	the dissociation is a bias in recruitment rather than an all-or-none separation of the two streams Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the untrained comparison group comes from a previous study rather than being run alongside these two Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	the frequency group's gain for the trained one-semitone cue did not improve across training blocks, unlike the location group's Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
limitations	repetition priming remains a possible partial contributor, which the paper argues against rather than excludes Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`limitations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	the what and where stream division, applied to audition Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[0]`	0.9	the tagger's words
transfers	HRTFs, used to render spatial separation over headphones Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
transfers	the finding that task relevance, not exposure, drives rapid receptive-field change Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`transfers[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
controls	the first training block, before any training, compared between the two groups at the 0-semitone / 0-degree baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a pre-existing difference between the two groups as the source of the later divergence · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[0]`	0.9	the tagger's words
controls	comparison against participants trained on the OTHER feature and against an untrained group from an earlier study Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: improvement caused by mere exposure to the stimuli rather than by training on the specific feature · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[1]`	0.9	the tagger's words
controls	analysing the GAIN attributable to frequency or spatial separation rather than raw accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: familiarity with the same stimuli across the training and the recording session as an explanation of the effect · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held	`controls[2]`	0.85	the tagger's words
senses	double dissociation here means a RELATIVE bias in recruitment, not categorical separation - the paper says the group difference was not all or none Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the gain measure is always a DIFFERENCE from the same-pitch same-location baseline, which is what makes it independent of stimulus familiarity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	spatial separation is simulated over headphones by a HRTF chosen per participant, so location is a rendered cue rather than a physical one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	feature-specific learning is contrasted throughout with procedural learning, defined as strategy change from task familiarisation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
senses	the ventral and dorsal streams are imported as established what and where pathways, and the paper's dissociation is read against that prior assignment rather than establishing it Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`senses[4]`	0.9	the tagger's words
alternatives	method: 45 minutes of training on either fundamental-frequency or spatial separation, then MEG during an identical concurrent-vowel task for both groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: electrophysiology — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.method`		the tagger's words
alternatives	phenomenon: rapid feature-specific perceptual learning within a single session Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value. Recorded: rapid feature-specific auditory perceptual learning — note: a second reading, verbatim-verified, disagreeing with the value on the record. Not applied - a person decides.	`alternatives.phenomenon`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Du et al. 2011 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[0]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → Alain et al. 2007; Alain, Campeanu, et al. 2010; Ben-David et al. 2011; Spierer et al. 2007 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[1]`		the tagger's words
claim_relations	contradicts → the view that first-hour improvement is procedural learning without feature specificity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	extends → behavioural reports of within-session specificity, by supplying the neurophysiological evidence they lacked Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. status: the paper's own words: remains to be determined	`claim_relations[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	confirms → animal work showing receptive fields change within minutes of a task and much less during passive listening Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	builds-on → Du et al. 2011, whose untrained group supplies the additivity baseline Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[5]`	1.0	the tagger's words
claim_relations	supports → the ventral what and dorsal where division of auditory cortical processing Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`claim_relations[6]`	0.9	the tagger's words
concept_edges	procedural learning —distinct-from→ perceptual sensitivity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 · note: CRITERION, stated in advance: procedural learning predicts comparable effects across differently trained groups, perceptual change predicts feature-specific gains. The rival is given its own prediction also in: procedural learning · perceptual sensitivity	`concept_edges[0]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	ventral —contrasted-with→ dorsal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.8 · note: SCOPED: the paper calls the group difference a bias in recruitment and not all or none, so the weight is deliberately below 1 also in: ventral · dorsal	`concept_edges[1]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	IFG —part-of→ ventral Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span lists IFG among regions more active in one group; part-of 'ventral' is loose. also in: IFG · ventral	`concept_edges[2]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	IPL —part-of→ dorsal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its span and kept, but the span lists parietal regions as posterior and dorsal; part-of 'dorsal' is loose. also in: IPL · dorsal	`concept_edges[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
concept_edges	gain in accuracy —distinct-from→ repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.9 · note: CRITERION: the measure is a difference from a baseline present in both phases, so stimulus familiarity cancels Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the span argues the gain is unlikely to be repetition priming; distinct-from is loose. also in: gain in accuracy · repetition priming	`concept_edges[4]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	post hoc test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: post hoc test	`content_tags.statistics[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Monte Carlo simulation (multiple-comparison correction) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Monte Carlo simulation (multiple-comparison correction)	`content_tags.statistics[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: correlation	`content_tags.statistics[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	standard error of the mean Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: This quote ends with the stray word 'In', the first word of the next sentence. It is not trimmed, because the quote without it occurs more than once in the paper's text and could not be tied to one place. The claim is carried by the sentence before 'In'. also in: standard error of the mean	`content_tags.statistics[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	repeated-measures ANOVA Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: repeated-measures ANOVA	`content_tags.statistics[6]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	paired t -tests Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: paired t -tests	`content_tags.statistics[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Pearson correlation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: Pearson correlation	`content_tags.statistics[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	family-wise corrected Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: family-wise corrected	`content_tags.statistics[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	Groups trained on a spectral versus a spatial cue showed a double dissociation in brain activity, ventral areas for the spectral group and dorsal areas for the spatial group, despite identical stimuli. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The frequency-trained group gained more from a pitch difference alone than from a location difference alone. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The group difference in cortical source activity appeared within roughly 100 ms of sound onset, which the authors read as a pre-stimulus attentional bias toward the trained feature. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	Because both groups had identical stimulus-response demands, the difference cannot easily be explained as procedural learning. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	After training, the sum of the gains from each cue alone was considerably larger than the gain from both cues together. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The two groups improved equally with practice overall, so the feature-specific effect is not an artefact of one group simply learning more. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	The authors call this the first demonstration of a feature-specific gain in human brain activity after brief training. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	both groups improved with practice during the training session Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the frequency-trained group gained more from a pitch difference and the location-trained group more from a spatial difference Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the group by trial-type interaction was large and each group beat the other on its own trained cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	no group difference remained when both cues were available at once Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the frequency-trained group recruited inferior frontal and temporal areas more strongly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the location-trained group recruited parietal and posterior temporal areas more strongly Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	the two networks differed although both groups heard exactly the same stimuli Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	right inferior frontal activity at 80-120 ms correlated with individual gain from the pitch cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[14]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	in both trained groups the gain from the trained cue was almost as large as the gain from both cues together Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[15]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	CONTROL NULL: no group by block interaction, so both groups improved equally overall and the specificity is not one group learning more Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[16]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	CONTROL: the same-pitch same-location condition appeared in both phases and showed little repetition priming Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[17]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	ASYMMETRY: across training blocks the location group improved its use of the trained cue while the frequency group did not Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[18]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	SCOPE STATED: the group difference is a bias in recruitment rather than an all-or-none separation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.findings[19]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	procedural learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural learning	`content_tags.definitions[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	trial type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trial type	`content_tags.definitions[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM) Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM)	`content_tags.definitions[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	procedural learning Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: procedural learning	`content_tags.definitions[3]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	HRTF Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: HRTF	`content_tags.definitions[4]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	double dissociation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: double dissociation	`content_tags.definitions[5]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	training group Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: training group	`content_tags.variables[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	trial type Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: trial type	`content_tags.variables[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	source activity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: source activity	`content_tags.variables[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	bottom-up sensory input Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: bottom-up sensory input	`content_tags.variables[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	HRTF coefficient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: HRTF coefficient	`content_tags.variables[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	gain in accuracy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: gain in accuracy	`content_tags.variables[6]`	0.85	the tagger's words
content_tags	semitone Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: semitone	`content_tags.variables[7]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	MEG Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: MEG	`content_tags.variables[8]`	0.9	the tagger's words
content_tags	R 2 = 0.58 — variance shared between right inferior frontal gyrus source activity at 80-120 ms and the behavioural gain from the pitch cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[0]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	R 2 = 0.63 — variance shared between right inferior parietal lobule source activity at 80-120 ms and the behavioural gain from the location cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[1]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	about 40% accuracy (chance 25%) — baseline double-vowel identification accuracy of both groups in the first training block Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[2]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	t 22 = 4.17, P < 0.001 / t 22 = 6.18, P < 0.001 — between-group tests confirming each group benefited more than the other from its own trained cue Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[3]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	F 2,44 = 33.32, P < 0.001 — group-by-trial-type interaction, the statistical core of the feature-specific behavioural effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[4]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	45-min — length of the single training session that produced the effects Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[5]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	all t 11 > 2.20, P < 0.05 — improvement of the Location group's use of the 90-degree separation cue from block 1 to blocks 2-4 Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[6]`		the tagger's words
content_tags	45 min — duration of the training session that produced the effect Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[7]`	0.8	the tagger's words
content_tags	40% against 25% chance — baseline accuracy before training, equal in both groups Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[8]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	F 2,44 = 33.32 — the group by trial-type interaction carrying the behavioural dissociation Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[9]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	R squared = 0.58 — correlation between right inferior frontal activity and individual pitch-cue gain Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[10]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	24 — participants, split into two groups of twelve Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[11]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	95% or better — single-vowel accuracy every participant reached before training began Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[12]`	1.0	the tagger's words
content_tags	1088 μL — minimum cluster size for a reported activation, with family-wise correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above.	`content_tags.quantities[13]`	1.0	the tagger's words

Interpretive choices

Tags that could not be placed in the text:

none — every tag was located in the text

What was deliberately not tagged, and why, is recorded per paper by the tagger. Where a paper has no such record, this page says so rather than implying that nothing was declined.