phenomenon · claim-type · cross-domain-transfer · mechanism · claim-relation · replication-status · limitation — grounded in the full text| phenomenon | rapid feature-specific auditory perceptual learning— “In the present study, we investigated whether a brief 45-min training program can yield a rapid feature-specific modulation on both behavior and neuromagnetic activity during subsequent measurement while participants identified 2 vowels presented simultaneously.” | |
| claim-type | existence— “To our knowledge, this is the first demonstration of a feature-specific gain in human brain activity following a brief training designed to enhance perceptual sensitivity to differences in voice pitch and voice location.” | |
| method — evidence | — “MEG data were recorded in a magnetically shielded room using a 151-channel whole-head neuromagnetometer (VSM Medtech, Port Coquitlam, BC, Canada).” | |
| object of study — evidence | — “Behavioral improvement within the first hour of training is commonly explained as procedural learning (i.e., strategy changes resulting from task familiarization). However, it may additionally reflect a rapid adjustment of the perceptual and/or attentional system in a goal-directed task.” | |
| research question — evidence | — “One important issue that has not been fully analyzed or confirmed is the specificity of the neuroplastic changes observed during these early stages of learning. Although animal studies have provided evidence for rapid adjustment of the perceptual system during training (for a review see Fritz et al. 2005a ), it remains to be determined… | |
| contribution — evidence | — “More importantly, the contrast between the 2 groups revealed a striking double dissociation in which listeners trained on spectral or spatial cues showed higher source activity in ventral (“what”) and dorsal (“where”) brain areas, respectively.” | |
| transfer | from visual neuroscience: the what and where stream division, applied to audition— “acoustic features well known to stimulate distinct ventral (“what”) and dorsal (“where”) neural pathways in humans” | transfers[0] |
| transfer | from psychoacoustics: HRTFs, used to render spatial separation over headphones— “The HRTF coefficients were individually determined by a brief sound localization task at the beginning of the experiment. On each trial, 1 of the 4 vowels was presented at 1 of the 5 azimuth locations (i.e., −90°, −45°, 0°, 45°, 90°) using a variety of HRTF coefficients selected from the TDT library that best suited the participant's… | transfers[1] |
| transfer | from animal electrophysiology: the finding that task relevance, not exposure, drives rapid receptive-field change— “For instance, changes in the receptive fields of ferret auditory cortex can occur within minutes of a tone discrimination task that was previously learned ( Fritz et al. 2003 , 2005a , 2005b ). However, these neuroplastic changes were smaller or absent if the animal listened passively to the same sounds (i.e., when the sounds are… | transfers[2] |
| mechanism | 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— “In the present study, the training phase may act as a priming task that biased attention toward the trained acoustic feature even when, in the subsequent task, participants were not explicitly told to focus attention on the voice or location.” | mechanisms[0] |
| mechanism | 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— “That is, the training may implicitly bias participants to focus their attention on the trained spectral or location difference between the 2 vowels, which would appear more salient than the untrained cue during MEG measurement that followed the brief training session.” | mechanisms[1] |
| mechanism | training may act as a priming task that biases attention to the trained cue, making it more salient later even without instruction— “In the present study, the training phase may act as a priming task that biased attention toward the trained acoustic feature even when, in the subsequent task, participants were not explicitly told to focus attention on the voice or location. That is, the training may implicitly bias participants to focus their attention on the trained… | mechanisms[2] |
| mechanism | the selectivity survives the delay to the MEG session and the absence of feedback there— “This training-induced selectivity appears to be fairly long-lasting and resilient, as it lingers throughout the delay between training and MEG recording and remains even when participants did not receive feedback on their performance during the MEG session.” | mechanisms[3] |
| mechanism | training changes how the two cues combine, not just how well each is used— “However, here in both trained groups, the gain from the trained cue was almost as large as having both cues simultaneously, which was only slightly higher than that from the trained cue alone (both t 11 > 2.80, P < 0.05). Moreover, the sum of gains from each cue was considerably larger than having both cues simultaneously” | mechanisms[4] |
| mechanism | the animal precedent is that receptive fields shift within minutes of a task, and much less when the same sounds are heard passively— “For instance, changes in the receptive fields of ferret auditory cortex can occur within minutes of a tone discrimination task that was previously learned ( Fritz et al. 2003 , 2005a , 2005b ). However, these neuroplastic changes were smaller or absent if the animal listened passively to the same sounds (i.e., when the sounds are… | mechanisms[5] |
| builds-on | Du et al. 2011— “Notably, we have previously shown that, in a group performing the same task on the same set of stimuli without pre-MEG training, the benefit from either the Δƒ 0 or Δlocation cue did not differ from one another and that from having access to both cues equaled the sum of gains for each single cue ( Du et al. 2011 ).” | claim_relations[0] |
| extends | Alain et al. 2007; Alain, Campeanu, et al. 2010; Ben-David et al. 2011; Spierer et al. 2007— “Our findings provide further evidence for rapid changes in cortical evoked responses after less than an hour of auditory training on sound spectro-temporal ( Alain et al. 2007 ; Alain, Campeanu, et al. 2010 ; Ben-David et al. 2011 ) or spatial ( Spierer et al. 2007 ) features, and offer the first neuroimaging evidence for rapid perceptual… | claim_relations[1] |
| contradicts | the view that first-hour improvement is procedural learning without feature specificity | claim_relations[2] |
| extends | behavioural reports of within-session specificity, by supplying the neurophysiological evidence they lacked Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| confirms | animal work showing receptive fields change within minutes of a task and much less during passive listening Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[4] |
| builds-on | Du et al. 2011, whose untrained group supplies the additivity baseline Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[5] |
| supports | the ventral what and dorsal where division of auditory cortical processing Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[6] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[0] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[1] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[2] |
| sense | feature-specific learning is contrasted throughout with procedural learning, defined as strategy change from task familiarisation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[3] |
| sense | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | senses[4] |
| control | the first training block, before any training, compared between the two groups at the 0-semitone / 0-degree baseline — held — rules out a pre-existing difference between the two groups as the source of the later divergence Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[0] |
| control | comparison against participants trained on the OTHER feature and against an untrained group from an earlier study — held — rules out improvement caused by mere exposure to the stimuli rather than by training on the specific feature Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[1] |
| control | analysing the GAIN attributable to frequency or spatial separation rather than raw accuracy — held — rules out familiarity with the same stimuli across the training and the recording session as an explanation of the effect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | controls[2] |
| evidential status | behavioural reports of within-session specificity, by supplying the neurophysiological evidence they lacked — the paper's own words: remains to be determined Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | claim_relations[3] |
| note | procedural learning —distinct-from→ perceptual sensitivity — 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 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[0] |
| note | ventral —contrasted-with→ dorsal — SCOPED: the paper calls the group difference a bias in recruitment and not all or none, so the weight is deliberately below 1 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| weight | ventral —contrasted-with→ dorsal — 0.8 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[1] |
| audit | IFG —part-of→ ventral — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| weight | IFG —part-of→ ventral — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[2] |
| audit | IPL —part-of→ dorsal — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| weight | IPL —part-of→ dorsal — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[3] |
| audit | gain in accuracy —distinct-from→ repetition priming — 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. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| note | gain in accuracy —distinct-from→ repetition priming — CRITERION: the measure is a difference from a baseline present in both phases, so stimulus familiarity cancels Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| weight | gain in accuracy —distinct-from→ repetition priming — 0.9 Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | concept_edges[4] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[0] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[1] |
| outcome (stated by the tagger, no quotation) | control — held | controls[2] |
| replication | untested | |
| limitation | A repetition/familiarity effect cannot be fully excluded as a partial cause of the behavioural and neural changes. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[0] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[1] |
| limitation | the dissociation is a bias in recruitment rather than an all-or-none separation of the two streams Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[2] |
| limitation | the untrained comparison group comes from a previous study rather than being run alongside these two Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[3] |
| limitation | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[4] |
| limitation | repetition priming remains a possible partial contributor, which the paper argues against rather than excludes Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | limitations[5] |
finding · quantity · variable · definition · key-term — grounded in the full text| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[0] |
| finding | The frequency-trained group gained more from a pitch difference alone than from a location difference alone. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[1] |
| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[2] |
| finding | Because both groups had identical stimulus-response demands, the difference cannot easily be explained as procedural learning. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[3] |
| finding | After training, the sum of the gains from each cue alone was considerably larger than the gain from both cues together. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[4] |
| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[5] |
| finding | The authors call this the first demonstration of a feature-specific gain in human brain activity after brief training. Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[6] |
| finding | both groups improved with practice during the training session Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[7] |
| finding | the frequency-trained group gained more from a pitch difference and the location-trained group more from a spatial difference Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[8] |
| finding | the group by trial-type interaction was large and each group beat the other on its own trained cue Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[9] |
| finding | no group difference remained when both cues were available at once Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[10] |
| finding | the frequency-trained group recruited inferior frontal and temporal areas more strongly Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[11] |
| finding | the location-trained group recruited parietal and posterior temporal areas more strongly Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[12] |
| finding | the two networks differed although both groups heard exactly the same stimuli Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[13] |
| finding | right inferior frontal activity at 80-120 ms correlated with individual gain from the pitch cue Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[14] |
| finding | in both trained groups the gain from the trained cue was almost as large as the gain from both cues together Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[15] |
| finding | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[16] |
| finding | CONTROL: the same-pitch same-location condition appeared in both phases and showed little repetition priming Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[17] |
| finding | ASYMMETRY: across training blocks the location group improved its use of the trained cue while the frequency group did not Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[18] |
| finding | SCOPE STATED: the group difference is a bias in recruitment rather than an all-or-none separation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.findings[19] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[0] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[1] |
| quantity | about 40% accuracy (chance 25%) — baseline double-vowel identification accuracy of both groups in the first training block Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[2] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[3] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[4] |
| quantity | 45-min — length of the single training session that produced the effects Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[5] |
| quantity | 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 paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[6] |
| quantity | 45 min — duration of the training session that produced the effect Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[7] |
| quantity | 40% against 25% chance — baseline accuracy before training, equal in both groups Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[8] |
| quantity | F 2,44 = 33.32 — the group by trial-type interaction carrying the behavioural dissociation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[9] |
| quantity | R squared = 0.58 — correlation between right inferior frontal activity and individual pitch-cue gain Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[10] |
| quantity | 24 — participants, split into two groups of twelve Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[11] |
| quantity | 95% or better — single-vowel accuracy every participant reached before training began Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[12] |
| quantity | 1088 μL — minimum cluster size for a reported activation, with family-wise correction Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.quantities[13] |
| variable | training group (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[0] |
| variable | trial type (independent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[1] |
| variable | source activity (dependent) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[3] |
| variable | bottom-up sensory input (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[4] |
| variable | HRTF coefficient (control) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[5] |
| variable | gain in accuracy Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[6] |
| variable | semitone Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[7] |
| variable | MEG Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.variables[8] |
| definition | procedural learning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[0] |
| definition | trial type Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[1] |
| definition | synthetic aperture magnetometry (SAM) Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[2] |
| definition | procedural learning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[3] |
| definition | HRTF Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[4] |
| definition | double dissociation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.definitions[5] |
| key-terms | procedural learning, perceptual sensitivity, double dissociation, ventral, dorsal, IFG, IPL, concurrent-vowel, HRTF, MEG, repetition priming, gain in accuracy |
| ANOVA F | as written: Repeated-measures analysis of variance (ANOVA) followed by 1-way ANOVA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[0] |
| post hoc test | as written: Bonferroni post hoc tests Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[1] |
| ANOVA F | as written: voxel-wise, mixed-effect 2-factor ANOVA Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[2] |
| Monte Carlo simulation (multiple-comparison correction) | as written: AlphaSim with 4096 (2 12 ) Monte Carlo simulations Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[3] |
| correlation R 2 | as written: Pearson correlation Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[4] |
| standard error of the mean | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| evidence status note | standard error of the mean — 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'. | content_tags.statistics[5] |
| repeated-measures ANOVA | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[6] |
| paired t -tests | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[7] |
| Pearson correlation | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[8] |
| family-wise corrected | Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | content_tags.statistics[9] |
| method | 45 minutes of training on either fundamental-frequency or spatial separation, then MEG during an identical concurrent-vowel task for both groups — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: electrophysiology Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.method |
| phenomenon | rapid feature-specific perceptual learning within a single session — a second reading DIFFERING from the recorded value; recorded: rapid feature-specific auditory perceptual learning Quotation withheld — this paper is not ours to reproduce, and the page has already quoted as much of it as the rights layer allows. The tag, its field and its confidence stand; the sentence is at the publisher. | alternatives.phenomenon |
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.
Tag layer © the Meta-Tagging Project, CC BY 4.0. The paper text is © its authors/publisher
and is linked, not reproduced. Excerpts shown are short quotations for identification and verification.
· back to index
· concepts · authors
· עברית
© 2026 Shir Sivroni · ORCID 0009-0000-2597-2824