11,500 Publications · 65,113 Citations

Do synapses link cells with similar visual responses after both cell count totals are fixed? We tested one MICrONS mouse V1 panel with 3,208 synapses, 36 source axons and 91,647 candidate pairs. Each candidate had positive axon-dendrite overlap length. The observed mean measured movie response correlation per synapse was 0.09444. A conditional Poisson allocation law with overlap weights and the same source and target synapse totals gave a mean of 0.06968 and a central 95% allocation range of 0.06461 to 0.07502. All eight planned weight and layer checks retained a positive excess. The primary law generated too many distinct connected pairs. We therefore added later tests that fixed all 283 multiple-synapse pairs and moved only 2,557 single-synapse links. These tests also kept every original cell synapse total, partner degree and multiplicity count fixed. With source scan totals and a distance penalty together, the observed single-synapse score was 0.08167 versus a null mean of 0.07589, with a range of 0.07258 to 0.07917. Five of 32,000 saved states exceeded the observed score. These later tests are exploratory. The result supports pair-specific measured response matching under the stated allocation laws. It does not establish a wiring mechanism, causal transmission or transfer to other mice. We supply a sampler with long cycle moves for forbidden pairs, exact small-table checks, extreme-start checks, all compact inputs and results, figures, source hashes and repeat instructions. Markov chain samples are correlated, and allocation ranges are not uncertainty intervals across animals.

We tested whether intact past word order adds neural prediction value. Separate public English reading studies supplied word-window ECoG and sentence BOLD fMRI. At each current word, reversal kept that word, the preceding word set and its current token position fixed. A local plan fixed GPT-2 block 8, projected features, controls and group holdouts before neural scores. Mean order gains were -0.0407% and +0.1508% of null loss in five ECoG patients and ten fMRI adults. Their 95% person t intervals were [-0.2395, +0.1581]% and [-0.0370, +0.3386]%. The fixed shared order-and-context rule failed, p=0.96875000. Mean intact-model held R2 was 0.0075 and -0.0297. Limited prediction skill restricts any inference about neural order processing. Removing position and length terms raised the ECoG order mean to +0.3548% in a fixed descriptive check. All negative scores and fixed checks remain. The package gives a controlled benchmark, a low memory model extractor, source pins and terms, complete loss summaries, figures and repeat steps. Source site selection, small clinical sampling, separate cohorts, fixed stimuli and unequal measurement filters limit scope. The model manipulation was not shown to people. It cannot establish a common neural cause. Original neural arrays and model weights stay external.

Training and scanner stop-signal reaction time (SSRT) residuals have a Pearson correlation of 0.454902 after joint schedule means and two scanner starting-delay terms are removed in 232 selected ds000030 pairs. The participant-pair 95% bootstrap interval is [0.284793, 0.584109]; the whole-schedule interval is [0.349417, 0.573233]. Correlation before adjustment is 0.549640. These are conditional associations in the same records, under stated exchangeability assumptions. Starting-delay adjustment can remove participant information or create bias because delays depend on training outcomes. The result does not identify a biological cause, establish independent-session reliability, or show stopping ability in other sessions. The source delay fields do not establish physical tone timing.

We tested whether four mean spectral coefficients improve response predictions for an excluded sound class. Separate human studies supplied signed intracranial field means and BOLD fMRI. Each model fit within-class acoustic slopes in four classes and tested centered responses in the fifth. Seven base terms described pitch, loudness and harmonicity. A local lock preceded new endpoint tests in 16 iEEG patients and 16 MRI adults. Mean added gains were +0.339 and +1.054 points of centered response error. Pointwise 95% person Student limits were [-0.303,+0.980] and [+0.412,+1.696]. The fixed shared gain-and-skill test failed, p=0.14657593. Eight adults from another MRI study had an uncertain added gain. All negative people and classes remain. A crossed fixed-model sound/person range also included zero for primary MRI gain. Complete-refit gain ranges included zero in every study. We supply 199 complete nested refits per study, all draw weights and all person results. A fixed-site proof shows invariance to class-specific response offsets and nonzero site gains. Independent least squares, exact source-chunk checks and clean score replays passed. These are new endpoint tests in reused public data, not new prospective cohorts. Clinical sampling, different sounds, tasks, source screens, extraction builds and measurement filters limit scope. No positive cross-modal neural effect, absence of spectral coding or causal relation was established. The package gives a checked negative benchmark, efficient exact refit tools, permitted inputs, provenance, all scalar outcomes, figures and repeat steps.

Question: did the apparent temperature sensitivity (days per °C) of spring phenology at Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) stations change between 1953–1986 and 1987–2025, do heat-sum models with the same temperatures predict the change, and which model part must change to reproduce it? This is an independent replication of [citation 1], [citation 3] and [citation 2], with a new decomposition. Data: JMA records (regular species) for 8 spring events at 33–82 stations; daily station temperature from GHCN-Daily, with 6,415 gap station-months filled from JMA daily pages and each month anchored to the official JMA monthly mean. Method: per-station OLS slope of event day on the 60-day pre-event mean temperature, for observed days and for days from forcing-only (thermal-time) and two chill-forcing models fitted by grid search with one requirement per station. Uncertainty: year resampling shared by all stations and a permutation test over random year partitions. Results: for cherry first flowering, cherry full bloom, ginkgo budburst and wisteria flowering, the observed sensitivity became 0.73–1.04 days/°C stronger, while the forcing-only model predicted −0.08 to +0.14. Observed minus model: −0.86 (95% year CI −1.50 to −0.27), −0.72 (−1.32 to 0.02), −1.06 (−1.73 to −0.11) and −1.06 (−1.61 to −0.39); permutation p 0.002, 0.017, 0.013, 0.005 (Holm over 8 events: 0.016, 0.085, 0.078, 0.035). Mulberry, azalea, dandelion and ume showed no significant difference. The result held for 30–90-day windows, detrending, control for earlier temperature, official monthly temperature and a neighbour-station instrument. Its size depends on the split year, and moving-window curves are not monotonic. New: a period-specific heat requirement reproduced none of the change (−0.06 to +0.13 days/°C), so a requirement change (for example, from less chilling) cannot explain it in these models. A period-specific base temperature reproduced 36–120% of it; the shift was identified only for wisteria (−5 to +1 °C; year CI of shift 1 to 15 °C). Also: the forcing-only model explains weaker cherry sensitivity at warmer stations (observed gradient +0.41, model +0.36 days/°C per °C), but not the absent gradient for ginkgo, wisteria and mulberry; chill terms cut cherry cross-validated error by 12–17%. Limits: one urban reference plant per station, simple grid models, most events end in 2020, cause not identified.

We tested whether a reference sound map predicts the order of its two closest residual relations in another person. Separate public studies supplied SEEG high-gamma estimates and BOLD fMRI. Two patients and four MRI adults supplied fixed source maps. A local code lock preceded new scores in six other patients, 16 other MRI adults, and eight adults from a separate MRI study. Each map used 128 source-defined nonvoice sounds. Separate estimates gave crossvalidated distances. Additive sound terms were removed. Mean correct local order was 51.95%, 59.86% and 50.00%. Their 95% person Student limits were 45.44–58.47%, 56.72–63.00% and 46.63–53.37%. The shared test failed, p=0.636719. Positive global map cosines of 0.0421, 0.8428 and 0.4182 reproduced the prior SCI result. All-candidate rank AUC was 54.1%, 91.0% and 70.0%. These easier comparisons did not establish local order. Electrical trial-order adjustment raised the mean to 54.3%; scaling rotations lowered it. All checks remain. A valid squared Euclidean construction had global cosine 0.99999999986 and zero correct local order. Thus global map agreement gives no positive lower bound for this local decision. The contribution is a checked test tool, an exact interpretation limit, and a negative human benchmark. Separate cohorts, fixed sounds, clinical sampling, source selection, filters and unknown repeat error covariance limit neural scope. No positive cross-modal local-order result or causal result was confirmed. Code, source pins and terms, all statistical results, figures and repeat steps are supplied. Original neural arrays remain external.

Question: did the apparent temperature sensitivity (days per °C) of spring phenology at Japan Meteorological Agency (JMA) stations change between 1953–1986 and 1987–2025, do heat-sum models with the same temperatures predict the change, and which model part must change to reproduce it? This is an independent replication of [citation 1], [citation 3] and [citation 2], with a new decomposition. Data: JMA records (regular species) for 8 spring events at 33–82 stations; daily station temperature from GHCN-Daily, with 6,415 gap station-months filled from JMA daily pages and each month anchored to the official JMA monthly mean. Method: per-station OLS slope of event day on the 60-day pre-event mean temperature, for observed days and for days from forcing-only (thermal-time) and two chill-forcing models fitted by grid search with one requirement per station. Uncertainty: year resampling shared by all stations and a permutation test over random year partitions. Results: for cherry first flowering, cherry full bloom, ginkgo budburst and wisteria flowering, the observed sensitivity became 0.73–1.04 days/°C stronger, while the forcing-only model predicted −0.08 to +0.14. Observed minus model: −0.86 (95% year CI −1.50 to −0.27), −0.72 (−1.32 to 0.02), −1.06 (−1.73 to −0.11) and −1.06 (−1.61 to −0.39); permutation p 0.002, 0.017, 0.013, 0.005 (Holm over 8 events: 0.016, 0.085, 0.078, 0.035). Mulberry, azalea, dandelion and ume showed no significant difference. The result held for 30–90-day windows, detrending, control for earlier temperature, official monthly temperature and a neighbour-station instrument. Its size depends on the split year, and moving-window curves are not monotonic. New: a period-specific heat requirement reproduced none of the change (−0.06 to +0.13 days/°C), so a requirement change (for example, from less chilling) cannot explain it in these models. A period-specific base temperature reproduced 36–120% of it; the shift was identified only for wisteria (−5 to +1 °C; year CI of shift 1 to 15 °C). Also: the forcing-only model explains weaker cherry sensitivity at warmer stations (observed gradient +0.41, model +0.36 days/°C per °C), but not the absent gradient for ginkgo, wisteria and mulberry; chill terms cut cherry cross-validated error by 12–17%. Limits: one urban reference plant per station, simple grid models, most events end in 2020, cause not identified.

We tested whether a direction learned from human voices gives higher scores to animal sounds than to environmental sounds absent from fitting. Separate human studies supplied signed intracranial field means and BOLD fMRI. An 88-feature acoustic fit was removed before learning each reader. Four people per primary study supplied development. A local core lock preceded new endpoint tests in 16 patients and 16 MRI adults. The fixed rule required positive mean transfer and held-voice validation in both studies. It failed, p=0.438765. Mean transfer was +0.308, with 95% person Student limits [-0.210,+0.826], in iEEG and +0.321 [+0.234,+0.408] in primary fMRI. Electrical reader validation was also uncertain. Eight adults from a second MRI acquisition gave +0.136 [-0.235,+0.507]. Complete shared-sound and person refits gave transfer ranges across zero in every study. Negative people, baseline checks, acoustic controls and source-label limits remain. Close prior animal-transfer SCI work was found after primary scoring and is cited. This is a new controlled method benchmark in reused studies, not independent prospective confirmation. The package gives permitted compact inputs, exact source pins, code, complete results, figures, source checks and repeat steps. It does not establish positive cross-modal generalization, absent animal information, or causality.

We tested whether one common sound profile, with a separate gain for each record, can describe selected auditory population means. Separate human studies supplied SEEG high-gamma responses and BOLD fMRI estimates for 165 sounds. Two patients and four MRI adults supplied development. A local lock preceded new endpoint tests in six other patients and 16 other adults. A product of matching two-by-two response determinants avoids a fitted reference profile. Its expectation is zero for a single true profile under stated repeat-error assumptions. Mean W was 1.395103e-05, with approximate 95% person jackknife limits [-0.0001911453, 0.0002190473] in SEEG. It was 0.0003158737, [0.0001952998, 0.0004364475], in primary fMRI. The shared rule failed; Holm p=0.9675597. Two initial reference-based claims also failed. Eight adults from another MRI study had a positive descriptive W result. Electrical cleaning checks changed estimates greatly. All negative results remain. In one declared Gaussian two-profile model, the positive-limit rule passed in only 72 of 1000 six-person draws. A common multidimensional neural code with different site mixtures also gives positive W. Thus the test concerns scalar recorded profiles, not different personal neural codes or a shared neural cause. Small clinical samples, source repeat screens, unequal cohorts, spatial mixtures and different time scales limit inference. The package supplies the method, proof, code, source pins and terms, all results, figures and repeat steps. No positive cross-modal neural result was confirmed.

We tested direct sound matching between a selected human ECoG panel and two separate fMRI studies. Twenty anchor sounds set site scales and distance profiles. The fixed test used 122 other sounds from 12 classes. Every false choice had the correct sound class. A local code lock preceded scores in 16 reserved B2021 adults. Mean rank AUCs were 0.60572 and 0.64096 in the two query directions. Chance is 0.5. The fixed test passed, two-claim Holm p=0.0002. An unchanged check in eight NH2015 adults gave 0.61199 and 0.63235, Holm p=0.0078125. A second acoustic-subtraction endpoint also passed. However, an exact category-only example rose from AUC 0.5 before subtraction to 1 after subtraction. Fitted acoustic subtraction can create fine matching and does not identify non-acoustic neural information. The original endpoint has an exact category-only guard. The electrical evidence is conditional on 32 distinct example profiles without released patient labels. There is no electrical patient holdout or population interval. Both MRI groups share the sounds and electrical reference. Small classes made 2774 of 4999 full target bootstrap draws undefined; defined-draw ranges are conditional. All negative person and class results remain. The package supplies source pins and terms, code, plans, complete scores and references, figures, exact limits and repeat instructions. This is measured correspondence for fixed sounds, not a shared neural cause or a semantic code.

We tested whether site scales from repeat differences improve sound identity matching over total variance scales. Separate public studies supplied human SEEG high-gamma amplitude and BOLD fMRI. Calibration and test sounds were separate. Each query estimate was matched to templates from two other estimates. Matching AUC is the fraction of wrong templates ranked below the correct one, with half credit for a tie. A fixed half mixture of total variance and repeat-difference variance set the new scales. A local code lock preceded new scores in six SEEG patients, 16 B2021 fMRI adults and eight NH2015 fMRI adults. Mean matching AUC rose by 0.949, 1.197 and 1.018 percentage points. Pointwise 95% person Student limits were [0.084,1.813], [1.048,1.347] and [0.829,1.207]. All 30 person means increased. The fixed test required positive mean gains and AUC above 0.5 in all three groups. It passed, p=0.018515. A symmetry-based mean sign-flip check gave p=0.015625. Gains stayed positive in all 20 added sound splits in each cohort. The result applies to 128 fixed source nonvoice sounds and source-selected sites. The new rule lost to two simpler scales in SEEG, and SEEG top-choice accuracy did not improve. The small-site electrical control was uncertain. These discordant results remain. The method is a bounded test of an established normalization idea, not a new best readout or a causal neural model. Clinical sampling, source selection, shared task order, baseline treatment, fixed sounds, separate cohorts and unequal measurement filters limit scope. The package supplies code, all person and cell ranks, source pins and terms, local plans, figures, checks and repeat instructions. Original neural arrays stay at their public sources.

We tested whether a speech/song-trained neural reader ranks excluded nonspeech human voices above excluded source nonvoice sounds. Separate public studies supplied high-gamma SEEG and BOLD fMRI. Two patients and four MRI adults supplied development. A local code lock preceded new endpoints in six patients, 16 B2021 adults and eight NH2015 adults. Each reader used scales from training data. We removed the spatial mean and set response length to one. We subtracted the pre-event mean from electrical responses. Mean transfer AUCs were 0.63385, 0.82835 and 0.81648. Their 95% person Student limits were [0.57936,0.68834], [0.80462,0.85209] and [0.79383,0.83913]. All 30 person means exceeded 0.5. A shared mean test also required held-speech validation and an electrical gain over a pre-event reader. It passed two-claim Holm correction, p=0.001533. A stronger fixed test required positive mean AUC for every one of nine voice clips in each study. It failed, p=0.789458. The weakest electrical clip had mean 0.45681 [0.33010,0.58353]; its name is unavailable. The scream clip was uncertain in the added MRI study. The minimum clip mean equals the worst AUC over offline mixtures of fixed voice score distributions against the fixed background. This elementary result gives no guarantee for new voices or different background weights. A small-site control left electrical and added-MRI two-sided intervals across chance. Independent arithmetic checked all 30 test people. Source hashes and an offline audit passed. These are new endpoints in reused studies, with one added MRI acquisition and no new electrical study. Small clinical samples, source screens, common task schedules, missing common acoustics, different cohorts, unequal spatial sampling and measurement filters limit scope. An exact single-factor example gave AUC 1 under the same method. No common circuit or causal effect was shown. Code, source pins and terms, all failures, figures and repeat steps are supplied.

We tested whether an acoustic response model predicts differences among sounds in a class absent from neural training. Separate public studies supplied signed SEEG field means and BOLD fMRI. Four patients and four MRI adults supplied development. A local code lock preceded new scores in 21 patients, 16 B2021 adults and eight NH2015 adults. At ridge penalty 10, mean gains were 0.02807, 0.07546 and 0.07354 source within-class variance units. Their 95% person Student limits were [0.00952,0.04662], [0.06956,0.08136] and [0.06130,0.08579]. The fixed average rule also required an electrical advantage over a pre-event control. It passed two-claim Holm correction, p=0.004971. The fixed test for every class failed, p=0.917961. In 999 full sound refits with person resampling, the electrical range was [-0.00220,0.04917]. Thus the fixed-library person result did not confirm robust transfer over both new people and new sounds. An added regional comparison favored early over association parcels in all 38 people with both panels; it is exploratory. An added exact gain-curve tool found no confidence-supported common positive scale interval for all classes. Independent solvers rebuilt all 265 person-class fits, and original chunks rebuilt all 110682 electrical window values. Separate cohorts and libraries, clinical sampling, source screens, unequal filters and feature builds limit scope. No shared neural cause was established. The package supplies code, permitted inputs, source pins and terms, all results, figures and repeat steps.

We tested whether a human-vocal versus other-sound label can replace five classes in a short response forecast. Separate public studies supplied signed human iEEG means and BOLD fMRI. Four people per primary study supplied development. A local code lock preceded new endpoints in 14 patients and 16 MRI adults. Mean binary gains over acoustic neighbors were 1.340 points [-0.139,2.819] and 3.220 [2.687,3.752]. Brackets give 95% person Student limits. One point is 1% of constant-forecast squared error. The fixed shared usefulness rule failed, Holm p=0.072126. The fixed half-benefit rule failed, Holm p=1. In all 16 primary MRI adults, binary gain was less than half the five-class gain. An added eight-adult MRI study gave gain 1.909 [0.122,3.696] and failed the half-benefit rule. Regional differences were positive in both primary studies. A later nine-test audit gave shared regional p=0.013840; it is exploratory. Exact subset risk exposed the benefit of pooling 16 rather than four nonvocal examples. One-site gain intervals crossed zero in both modalities. Pre-event electrical gain was positive but absolute skill was negative. Without shrinkage, electrical gain rose to 13.927 points while absolute skill was uncertain. A separate matrix solver checked all five risks in all 38 test people. The package supplies the assay, permitted compact inputs, all negative results, source checks and terms, figures, and repeat steps. It does not confirm a shared positive forecast under the fixed rules, one sufficient neural dimension, or a causal effect. Clinical sampling, distinct cohorts and libraries, source screens, measurement filters and limited electrical precision restrict scope.

We tested whether a sound allocation learned from one neural measurement lowers class mean map error in the other measurement. Separate public studies supplied signed iEEG field means and BOLD fMRI. Four development people per modality set the allocations. A local code lock preceded new scores in 18 patients and 16 MRI adults. The two modalities used different sound clips. The risk is exact expected mean squared error under random sampling without replacement from each fixed released library. At 60 distinct sounds, the mean person risk increased by 4.540% in iEEG and 2.394% in fMRI relative to equal class sampling. Pointwise 95% person Student limits for the increases were [2.464,6.616]% and [1.897,2.891]%. Sixteen of 18 patients and all 16 MRI adults had higher risk. At 30 sounds, the electrical allocation increased risk in all 18 patients; reverse allocation was exactly equal sampling. Both planned benefit claims failed after Holm correction, p=1. Algebraic variance thresholds explain these fixed-table signs. Joint source-person and sound resampling gives a 60-sound change range of -9.385% to -0.420% in iEEG and -4.401% to +0.870% in fMRI. Thus the latter crosses zero. The additional MRI acquisition shares the MRI sound library. Cohorts, clips, tasks, tissue sampling, source screens and measurement noise differ. No positive cross-modal neural generalization, causal modality effect or prospective time saving was established. The package gives an exact-risk benchmark, code, permitted inputs, all outcomes, source pins and terms, figures and repeat instructions.

We tested whether directions of measured repeat changes rank vocal sounds above nonvocal sounds on sounds excluded from fitting. Separate public studies supplied human SEEG high-gamma activity and BOLD fMRI. Development used two patients and four MRI adults. A local code lock preceded new tests in six other patients, 16 other MRI adults, and eight adults from a second MRI study. Stable additive sound means cancel from two repeat contrasts. Training-only scales, spatial contrasts, unit normalization, and regularized quadratic class rules gave mean AUCs 0.52684, 0.59124, and 0.57281. Their 95% person Student intervals were [0.51231,0.54137], [0.56222,0.62026], and [0.54458,0.60105]. All 30 reserved people ranked above chance. But the full fixed rule also required a positive SEEG increase over pre-onset activity. Its interval was [-0.00035,0.04737], so the full rule failed; its equivalent gate value was 0.05233. A joint person-and-sound SEEG range crossed chance. The two electrical repeat contrasts gave mean AUCs 0.55044 and 0.50324. Pre-onset subtraction gave 0.49188 [0.47306,0.51070]. A common gain model gave positive ranks without class-specific random errors. An exact model gave AUC 0.9 with equal raw covariance in both classes. Thus angular ranks do not establish unequal raw covariance or intrinsic neural noise. This is a checked method and negative full-test benchmark. Source selection, clinical sampling, separate cohorts, acoustic differences, and unequal measurement filters limit scope. No shared stimulus-specific neural mechanism or causality was confirmed. Code, source pins and terms, all results, figures, and repeat steps are preserved.

We tested whether directions that separate sound groups also keep stable measured differences within those groups. Separate human studies supplied SEEG high-gamma amplitude and BOLD fMRI. Each source had 165 sounds in three broad voice groups. Two patients and four MRI adults supplied development. A local lock preceded endpoint tests in six other patients and 16 other adults. Each fit used other sounds and one repeat to learn a rank-two category plane. Two other repeats tested within-group covariance. The comparison used 999 planes fitted to shuffled training labels. Mean excess covariance was +3.127 points in SEEG, with 95% person Student limits [+1.004,+5.251]. It was +2.646 points in primary fMRI [+2.172,+3.120]. One point is 0.01 of balanced training energy. One shared intersection test passed, p=0.03125. One negative SEEG patient remains. Eight added MRI adults gave +1.527 points [+0.956,+2.097]. The planes kept about one third of mean within-group repeat energy in both primary cohorts. Sound and person refits gave a SEEG range across zero. Short-baseline subtraction also left no clear SEEG effect. Pattern-length removal and specified time-order controls kept positive means. These are descriptive checks. The finding concerns fixed panels and source-selected processed records, not all new sounds, pure semantic coding or a common neural cause. Closely related SCI work was found after the first primary scores and is cited. This is a new controlled endpoint test in reused data, not new prospective confirmation. The package gives source pins and terms, code, complete results, figures, audits and repeat steps.

We tested whether a small reference atlas improves response forecasts from 32 calibration sounds. Separate public studies supplied human SEEG high-gamma amplitude and BOLD fMRI. Four reference response axes and a 0.25 forecast multiplier predicted contrasts among 96 other sounds in each fixed 128-sound nonvocal library. Donor development selected the multiplier after an initial electrical forecast failed. A local code lock preceded new endpoints in six patients and 16 MRI adults. Mean error decreases were 2.681% and 6.898%, with 95% person Student limits [0.939,4.423]% and [5.960,7.836]%. Both gains and gains over shuffled atlas labels passed the fixed shared rule, p=0.015625. The unchanged MRI atlas gave a 5.285% decrease [4.258,6.312]% in eight adults from another acquisition of the same clips. All 30 person means were positive. Fixed controls limit the finding. Added 100 ms electrical baseline subtraction gave -0.048% [-0.341,0.245]%. First-24-site means were negative in all three studies. The unscaled electrical forecast also failed. Later probes found loss of gain after adding or shuffling the short baseline. Those probes are exploratory and change noise. Thus the result is a conditional measured forecast benefit, not evidence for a robust common neural code. Source selection, shared electrical order, sparse clinical coverage, fixed reference people, different cohorts and filters, and small-sample inference assumptions limit scope. Code, provenance, all negative results, figures and repeat instructions are preserved. Original neural arrays remain external under source terms.

We tested whether reference listeners predict which sounds have patterns far from other sounds in the same group. We also tested whether this agreement exceeds agreement on repeat-to-repeat differences. Separate human studies supplied auditory SEEG high-gamma amplitude and BOLD fMRI estimates for 165 sounds. Two patients and four MRI adults supplied reference profiles. A local code lock preceded new scores in six other patients and sixteen MRI adults. Mean repeated-pattern agreement was -0.0530 and 0.5472. Their 95% person Student limits were [-0.1650, 0.0590] and [0.4941, 0.6002]. Mean advantages over disagreement agreement were -0.0109 and 0.5111. The fixed shared gate failed, p=0.86103. A fixed MRI reference also gave positive scores in all eight adults from a second MRI study, which has descriptive status under the main-first gate. Planned SEEG checks gave positive mean agreement before a new short-baseline subtraction and uncertain agreement after it. All negative people and controls remain. An exact identity links the assay to average cross-repeat pair separation. Independent literal calculations, generated models and offline score replay check the method. The result does not confirm cross-modal generalization or establish a biological modality difference. Fixed libraries, source selection, shared order, sparse clinical sampling, baseline uncertainty, unequal spatial support and vascular effects limit scope. The package supplies code, source versions and terms, result vectors, all outcomes, figures and repeat instructions. Original site arrays remain external.