Nearby training sounds failed tests of shared error gain in 20 iEEG patients and 16 fMRI adults

We tested whether nearby training sounds lower neural response error more than equally sized far or random sets with the same class counts. Separate public studies supplied signed human iEEG and BOLD fMRI. Each target response was excluded. All rules shared class calibration from other sounds. Five patients and four MRI adults supplied development. A local code lock preceded tests in 20 other patients and 16 other adults. Near-versus-far mean gains were 0.562% and 1.855% of category-baseline error. Their 95% person intervals were [-0.102%,1.226%] and [1.180%,2.529%]. Positive counts were 12/20 and 15/16. Near-versus-random gains were 0.237% and 2.242%, with intervals [-0.283%,0.758%] and [1.775%,2.710%]. Both shared claims failed Holm correction, p=0.503445. Near skill was positive in each modality. A later unchanged test in eight adults from a separate MRI study gave 0.126% near-versus-far gain, interval [-0.582%,0.833%], and 1.836% near-versus-random gain, interval [0.868%,2.803%]. Thus the MRI random-set comparison repeated, but the distance order did not. Separate B2021 estimates also had uncertain near-versus-far gains. All negative outcomes remain. A noiseless one-scalar linear response example gave a 69.93% Gaussian-model support gain at penalty one. This limits nonlinear neural claims. Independent fits checked 31,872 person-target-rule predictions. Fresh source reads rebuilt all electrical means exactly. The package supplies code, permitted inputs, provenance, source terms, plans, uncertainty, figures and repeat steps. Clinical sampling, source selection, different cohorts, feature sets, sound panels and measurement filters limit scope. No positive cross-modal support advantage or common neural cause was confirmed.

human auditory cortex · intracranial EEG · fMRI · acoustic support · response prediction · negative result