ArticleCerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991)2019
Is Human Auditory Cortex Organization Compatible With the Monkey Model? Contrary Evidence From Ultra-High-Field Functional and Structural MRI.
Article in Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991), 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 20 citations in OpenAlex.
- Pooled it
- Category learning drives cortical attentional gain to diagnostic dimensions.bioRxiv : the preprint server for biology · 2025Article
- The auditory P2 is influenced by pitch changes but not pitch strength and consists of two separate subcomponents.Imaging neuroscience (Cambridge, Mass.) · 2024Article
- Emotional sounds in space: asymmetrical representation within early-stage auditory areas.Frontiers in neuroscience · 2023Article
- Predictive encoding of pure tones and FM-sweeps in the human auditory cortex.Cerebral cortex communications · 2022Article
- Using high spatial resolution fMRI to understand representation in the auditory network.Progress in neurobiology · 2021Review
- Article
- Dissociable Auditory Cortico-Cerebellar Pathways in the Human Brain Estimated by Intrinsic Functional Connectivity.Cerebral cortex (New York, N.Y. : 1991) · 2021Article
- Decoding visual information from high-density diffuse optical tomography neuroimaging data.NeuroImage · 2021Article
- Article
- Dawn of the Visible Monkey: Segmentation of the Rhesus Monkey for 2D and 3D Applications.Journal of Korean medical science · 2020Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 1 institution in 3 countries.
Funding
Abstract
It is commonly assumed that the human auditory cortex is organized similarly to that of macaque monkeys, where the primary region, or "core," is elongated parallel to the tonotopic axis (main direction of tonotopic gradients), and subdivided across this axis into up to 3 distinct areas (A1, R, and RT), with separate, mirror-symmetric tonotopic gradients. This assumption, however, has not been tested until now. Here, we used high-resolution ultra-high-field (7 T) magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) to delineate the human core and map tonotopy in 24 individual hemispheres. In each hemisphere, we assessed tonotopic gradients using principled, quantitative analysis methods, and delineated the core using 2 independent (functional and structural) MRI criteria. Our results indicate that, contrary to macaques, the human core is elongated perpendicular rather than parallel to the main tonotopic axis, and that this axis contains no more than 2 mirror-reversed gradients within the core region. Previously suggested homologies between these gradients and areas A1 and R in macaques were not supported. Our findings suggest fundamental differences in auditory cortex organization between humans and macaques.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.