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 WITHDRAWN AND REPLACED — the entry was wrong, and a corrected version of it appears in the entries below.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 An entry we have WITHDRAWN is removed from this page and kept in the record, with its reason.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.| 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 |
| concept | concepts | an idea the paper works with, quoted where the paper uses 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 |
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 8 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 | the spatial arrangement of frequency-selective responses in human auditory cortex 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 | how many tonotopic gradients human auditory cortex contains, how they are oriented relative to HG, and how far they vary across subjects 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 | two mirror-symmetric gradients running perpendicular to HG rather than along it, a third smaller gradient on lateral posterior STG, and a methodological diagnosis of why the previous literature disagreed 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 | tonotopic organization of human auditory cortex 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 | fmri Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: fmri | 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. | 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. duplicate of: mechanisms[3] | mechanisms[1] | the tagger's words | |
| mechanisms | cortical folding puts the anterior and posterior high-frequency zones physically close together, so volume-based analysis and smoothing blur them into one Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. duplicate of: mechanisms[0] | mechanisms[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | flattening the superior temporal plane separates regions that are adjacent in 3-D, making gradients perpendicular to the gyrus visible 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 | sparse sampling: the scanner runs only in a 1.6 s silent gap after the 8 s tone sequence, so scanner noise never overlaps the stimulus 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 | stochastic alternation between two- and three-tone bursts holds the cortical response up, since auditory neurons adapt after onset Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | tone ratios chosen so the composite produces no harmonic relationship and no missing-fundamental pitch Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | best frequency is interpolated between the six tested bands by weighting adjacent conditions, giving finer resolution than the design has Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | landmark-based surface alignment rather than volumetric alignment, for spatial precision in the temporal lobe Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | non-parametric permutation testing because eight subjects will not support a parametric group test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| mechanisms | several sessions per subject, to buy single-subject statistical power and a test-retest estimate at the same time Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | mechanisms[10] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | The core/belt boundary drawn on the homology map cannot be established from frequency responses alone and is an estimate imported from macaque anatomy and human cytoarchitecture. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the core/belt boundary drawn on the map: THE EXACT BOUNDARY BETWEEN CORE AND BELT CANNOT BE DETERMINED BASED SOLELY ON FREQUENCY RESPONSE, THUS THIS LINE IS AN ESTIMATE GUIDED BY THE KNOWN TOPOGRAPHICAL ORGANIZATION IN THE MACAQUE | limitations[0] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The absence of a gradient corresponding to macaque area RT may be a sensitivity failure of the stimuli rather than evidence that the area is absent in humans. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the claimed absence of an RT-like gradient: THE LACK OF FREQUENCY-SELECTIVE ACTIVATION IN THIS REGION COULD BE DUE TO LOW SENSITIVITY TO THE STIMULI USED IN THE CURRENT STUDY | limitations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | The sample was small enough to force non-parametric permutation testing for the group analysis. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the group significance test, and the paper says what it did about it: Quotation withheld | limitations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| limitations | the tested range truncates the tuning estimate, so points preferring 200 or 6400 Hz were excluded from that analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: tuning estimates at the edges of the tested range: POINTS WERE ALSO EXCLUDED IF THEIR LARGEST RESPONSE WAS TO THE LOWEST (200 Hz) OR HIGHEST (6400 Hz) FREQUENCY | limitations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | an absence the authors decline to resolve: no anterior RT-like gradient, which may be the stimuli or may be the species Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[1], left open: ALTERNATIVELY, IT IS POSSIBLE THAT AREA RT DOES NOT EXIST IN HUMANS - a sensitivity failure and a real absence are not distinguished | limitations[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the sharper-tuning reading is undercut by the authors themselves, because the effect tracks overall response strength Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the sharper-tuning reading: THESE PATTERNS GENERALLY APPEAR TO BE CORRELATED WITH THE OVERALL STRENGTH OF THE RESPONSE | limitations[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | the core/belt boundary cannot be fixed from frequency response alone, so the line drawn is an estimate imported from other evidence Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the same scope as limitations[0] - the core/belt line, imported from macaque and cytoarchitecture rather than measured here | limitations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | apparent parietal operculum activation is an artifact of volume-to-surface mapping, not a finding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the parietal operculum activation, which is not a finding: THIS ACTIVATION IS PRIMARILY AN ARTIFACT OF THE MAPPING BETWEEN VOLUME AND SURFACE SPACES DUE TO PARTIAL VOLUME EFFECTS | limitations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | high variability across subjects and hemispheres in where the low-frequency border between gradients falls Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: any claim about where the border between gradients falls: THE LOCATION OF THE LOW-FREQUENCY BORDER BETWEEN THE TWO GRADIENTS VARIED IN RELATION TO HG, with A HIGH DEGREE OF VARIABILITY ACROSS SUBJECTS AND ACROSS HEMISPHERES | limitations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | inter-session variability attributed partly to head movement and partly to unmeasured attention and alertness Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: voxel counts and preferred frequency across sessions: SOME INTER-SESSION VARIABILITY WAS SEEN IN THE NUMBER OF SIGNIFICANTLY ACTIVATED VOXELS AND THEIR PREFERRED FREQUENCY | limitations[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | eight subjects, seven of them male Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the population every map describes: FMRI DATA WERE COLLECTED FROM 8 RIGHT-HANDED SUBJECTS (7 MALE, 1 FEMALE; AGES 20-37 YEARS) | limitations[10] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| limitations | no task was performed, so attentional state during scanning is uncontrolled by design Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. what this limits: the attentional state the tonotopic maps were measured in: SUBJECTS WERE INSTRUCTED TO LIE STILL AND LISTEN TO THE TONES. NO SPECIFIC TASK WAS PERFORMED DURING THE EXPERIMENT | limitations[11] | 0.8 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | the core/belt field layout, used as the template against which a human fMRI map is read and labelled Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | transfers[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| transfers | retinotopy used as the contrast case for how a receptive-field gradient behaves at an areal boundary 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 |
| controls | the intensity of every tone sequence normalised to A-weighted 76.3 dB Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. eliminates: a loudness difference between sequences - otherwise a tonotopic response could be a response to how loud each frequency happened to be · outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation): held | controls[0] | 0.85 | the tagger's words |
| concepts | cortical folding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cortical folding | concepts[13] | the paper's words | |
| concepts | physical proximity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: physical proximity | concepts[14] | the paper's words | |
| senses | tonotopy - a gradient of preferred frequency mirroring the cochlea; explicitly a map of one stimulus dimension, not of any other response property 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 | gradient - as a field bounded by high and low bands, not as a line between two poles; the paper says this reading is itself a source of the literature's disagreement 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 | frequency-selective - defined operationally as a significant F test across the six tested frequencies, carrying no claim about tuning shape 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 | tuning bandwidth - here a ratio of preferred to non-preferred BOLD amplitude, which the paper scare-quotes and then declines to read as tuning width 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 | core and belt - cytoarchitectonic and connectional divisions, explicitly not divisions defined by the frequency map being measured Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| senses | corresponds to / homologous to - used hedged throughout for human-macaque field matches, never as identity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | senses[5] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| alternatives | method: fMRI with sparse sampling, six multi-tone frequency bands from 200 to 6400 Hz, analysed on flattened cortical surfaces with landmark-based alignment 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: fmri — 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: tonotopy - a cortical gradient of preferred frequency mirroring the cochlea 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: tonotopic organization of human auditory cortex — 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 | replicates → Formisano et al. (2003); Talavage et al. (2004); Woods et al. (2009) 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 | contradicts → Formisano et al. (2003), on the orientation of the gradients relative to HG Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the ORIENTATION of the gradients relative to HG: THESE GRADIENTS ARE ORIENTED APPROXIMATELY ALONG THE AXIS OF HG, WHEREAS THE GRADIENTS WE OBSERVED WERE PERPENDICULAR TO THE LONG AXIS OF HG | claim_relations[1] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | contradicts → Woods et al. (2009), on labelling the posterior lateral gradient as parabelt Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: where the parabelt is and whether it is tonotopic at all: THERE IS LITTLE EVIDENCE FOR TONOTOPIC ORGANIZATION IN THE PARABELT OF MONKEYS, and RECENT HUMAN CYTOARCHITECTONIC DATA SUGGEST THAT THE PARABELT IS LOCATED MORE VENTRALLY IN THE UPPER BANK OF THE SUPERIOR TEMPORAL SULCUS | claim_relations[2] | the tagger's words | |
| claim_relations | partially-supports → Formisano et al. 2003: two mirror-symmetric gradients, but running along the axis of HG Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | refines → Talavage et al. 2004: three gradients described as narrow lines between high and low poles Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[4] | 0.9 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → Woods et al. 2009: one low-frequency area on HG flanked by two high-frequency areas 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 | contradicts → Woods et al. 2009: the posterior lateral field is parabelt Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: which area the same patch of cortex IS - the two papers show A SIMILAR DIAGRAM and label it differently: AREA CL here, POSTERIOR PARABELT there, and the criterion offered is that IN THE MONKEY, THIS GRADIENT DOES NOT EXTEND INTO ADJACENT AREAS; THEREFORE, ITS BOUNDARIES ARE EASILY DETERMINED | claim_relations[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | contradicts → the early two-frequency studies: a single gradient running along the axis of HG Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: the analysis method, named as decisive across the whole prior literature: ONE THAT WE BELIEVE IS CRITICAL IS THAT Quotation withheld | claim_relations[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | qualifies → their own reading that these central regions are more sharply tuned Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: which side of the difference moves: the sharper tuning is DRIVEN PRIMARILY BY INCREASES IN RESPONSE TO THE PREFERRED FREQUENCY RATHER THAN DECREASES IN THE RESPONSE TO THE NON-PREFERRED FREQUENCIES, so the pattern IS CORRELATED WITH THE OVERALL STRENGTH OF THE RESPONSE and need not be sharper tuning | claim_relations[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| claim_relations | supports → macaque evidence that area CM prefers higher than average frequencies without a gradient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | claim_relations[9] | 0.95 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | tonotopy —same-as→ cochleotopy 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: given as alternate names in one clause, unhedged - a positive control for the join key also in: tonotopy · cochleotopy | concept_edges[0] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | frequency-selective response —operationalised-as→ F test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 1 also in: frequency-selective response · F test | concept_edges[1] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | surface-based —contrasted-with→ volume-based analysis Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS THE ANALYSIS METHOD, AND IT IS OFFERED AS THE EXPLANATION OF THE DISAGREEMENT. 'Quotation withheld' The authors name the one difference they think decides the result out of many they could have named - which is the analyst decision this project exists to make legible. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: the contrast the paper says explains the whole literature's disagreement also in: surface-based · volume-based analysis | concept_edges[2] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | cortical folding —causes→ physical proximity Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. direction on the measure: increases · strength of the relation: 0.95 also in: cortical folding · physical proximity | concept_edges[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | posterior lateral gradient —same-as→ area CL Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.65 — the record marks this weak · note: most likely corresponds to
Audit 2026-09-28: DOUBTFUL - read against its full span and kept, but the gradient 'MOST LIKELY corresponds to' area CL; same-as is hedged. also in: posterior lateral gradient · area CL | concept_edges[5] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | posterior lateral gradient —distinct-from→ posterior parabelt Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. strength of the relation: 0.85 · note: a labelling dispute with Woods et al., settled by appeal to a different evidence type also in: posterior lateral gradient · posterior parabelt | concept_edges[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | core —distinct-from→ belt Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. differs in: THE AXIS IS WHAT DEFINES THE BOUNDARY. 'Quotation withheld' The two regions are not distinguished by the property the paper measures - they are distinguished by a different property entirely, so a tonotopic result cannot confirm or refute the division it is described against. · strength of the relation: 1 · note: the boundary is stipulated from cytoarchitecture and connectivity, not from the phenomenon being mapped | concept_edges[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| concept_edges | retinotopic gradients —contrasted-with→ receptive field gradients in auditory cortex 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: a structural contrast between sensory systems sharing almost no vocabulary | concept_edges[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | general linear model Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: general linear model | content_tags.statistics[0] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F-test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: F-test | content_tags.statistics[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | multiple comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: multiple comparison correction | content_tags.statistics[2] | 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[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. also in: permutation test | content_tags.statistics[4] | 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[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | F test across six frequency conditions Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | cluster thresholding Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: cluster thresholding | content_tags.statistics[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | non-parametric permutation test Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: non-parametric permutation test | content_tags.statistics[8] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | between-session correlation coefficient Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.statistics[9] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | Two mirror-symmetric frequency gradients run anterior-posterior from a low-frequency zone on lateral Heschl's gyrus out to high-frequency zones in front of and behind it. 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 | These principal gradients lie perpendicular to HG, overturning the prevailing assumption that they run parallel to it. 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 | A third, smaller gradient was found on the lateral posterior superior temporal gyrus. 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 | The human maps are argued to be closely homologous to nonhuman primate auditory cortex, with the two main gradients corresponding to macaque A1 and R. 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 | Individual tonotopic maps were highly reproducible across separate scanning sessions. 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 | Inspection of unnormalized data suggests the regional differences are driven mainly by a larger response to the preferred frequency rather than a smaller response to non-preferred ones. Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.findings[5] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | two mirror-symmetric gradients run roughly perpendicular to HG, not parallel as previously assumed Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.findings[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | a low-frequency zone on lateral HG is flanked anteriorly and posteriorly by high-frequency zones in every subject 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 | a third, smaller gradient runs along lateral posterior STG, mainly in the left hemisphere 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 | frequency-selective responses were confined to the superior temporal plane in both hemispheres 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 | maps are highly reproducible across sessions within a subject 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 unnormalized data suggest the difference is driven mainly by a larger preferred response rather than a smaller non-preferred one 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 | no distinct frequency gradient in area CM, agreeing with macaque evidence for an overall high-frequency preference there 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 | prior imaging results and their interpretations varied considerably 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 | four previous studies reached four different conclusions, one of them denying the gradients are gradients at all Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. WHOSE RESULT THIS IS: one study reported - THE EVIDENCE FOR THIS ROW ATTRIBUTES THE WORK TO SOMEBODY ELSE. The cited name is the subject of a result verb and the sentence carries no first-person marker, so the finding, quantity or definition is the CITED author's rather than this record's. The claim is true and the quote is verbatim - what is wrong is whose result the corpus says it is. Nothing edited, nothing withdrawn: the row is marked so a page can name the source. Where the record is a commentary or review, its claim relations layer usually already names the paper being discussed - the record knows at one layer and forgets at another. | content_tags.findings[14] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | tuning bandwidth Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tuning bandwidth | content_tags.definitions[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | frequency-selective response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frequency-selective response | content_tags.definitions[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | tonotopy Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: tonotopy | content_tags.definitions[3] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | frequency-selective response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frequency-selective response | content_tags.definitions[4] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | frequency of maximum response Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: frequency of maximum response | content_tags.variables[1] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | mean BOLD signal Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. also in: mean BOLD signal | content_tags.variables[2] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 8 — number of subjects scanned, with sex split and age range 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 | 392 trials total — trials per scanning session, from 7 runs of 56 trials 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 | .834 (SD = 0.083) — mean correlation of a subject's tonotopy map between scanning sessions, i.e. test-retest stability 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 | 20 to 30 mm 3 — range of the per-subject cluster-size threshold used for multiple-comparison correction Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. about this quote: QUOTE RECOVERED FROM THE PAPER'S OWN CHARACTERS. The recorded quote was LETTERS-ONLY IDENTICAL to this stretch of the staged text but not an exact substring of it - spaces, hyphens, ligature glyphs or mathematical operators differed, so it could never anchor. This is the file's own text between the same two letters: not produced by a rule about the damage, copied out of the file. Round-trip checked (the recovered span is letters-only equal to the original) and length-checked. The text as originally recorded is kept in evidence as extracted. | content_tags.quantities[3] | the tagger's words | |
| content_tags | 76.3 dB — A-weighted intensity to which every tone sequence was normalised 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 | 9.6 seconds — trial length: an 8-second sound followed by a 1.6-second silent gap in which the scan was acquired 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 | 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200, 6400 Hz — the six centre frequencies tested Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[6] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | 8 right-handed subjects, 7 male and 1 female, ages 20-37 — the sample Quotation withheld — this record is not cleared for redistribution. The sentence is in the paper at the link above. | content_tags.quantities[7] | 1.0 | the tagger's words |
| content_tags | .834, SD 0.083 — mean between-session correlation of the tonotopy maps 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 | better than 20 dB HL from 250 to 8000 Hz — audiometric inclusion criterion 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 | 20 to 30 mm3 — cluster threshold, which varied by subject because smoothness was estimated per subject 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 | 8 s stimulus then a 1.6 s scanning gap, 9.6 s per trial — the sparse-sampling timing 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 | 3000 Hz — Formisano's highest frequency, offered as the reason that study may have missed medial anterior high-frequency cortex 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 | 3600 Hz, 4 Hz presentation rate — Woods' ceiling and rate, against 6400 Hz and 10 Hz here 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 |
Tags that could not be placed 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.