Detection and discrimination of simple and complex sounds by hearing-impaired Belgian Waterslager canaries
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Belgian Waterslager canaries (BWC) are bred to produce a distinctive low-pitched song with energy restricted to a lower range of frequencies than in other types of canaries. Previous studies have shown a high frequency hearing loss primarily above 2000 Hz that is related to hair cell abnormalities in BWC, but little is known about auditory perception in these birds. Here, frequency, duration, and intensity discrimination, temporal integration, gap detection, and discrimination of temporally reversed harmonic complexes in BWC were measured and compared to normal-hearing non-BWC. BWC had excellent frequency discrimination ability at 1000 Hz, but showed poor frequency discrimination compared to non-BWC at frequencies in the region of hearing loss. Duration and intensity discrimination were not adversely affected in BWC. Temporal integration was reduced in BWC, except at 2000 Hz. Gap detection and discrimination of temporally reversed stimuli were somewhat better in BWC than in non-BWC. Those tests that relied primarily on temporal processing were less affected by the cochlear damage in BWC than tests that probably relied more on audibility and spectral analysis. Thus, despite significant high frequency hearing loss and extensive damage along the basilar papilla, BWC retain relatively good hearing abilities under many conditions.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".