MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1997913619 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31816453dc

Human Cortical Responses to the Speech Envelope

2008· article· en· W1997913619 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.
fundA Canadian funder is recorded on the work.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsSpeech recognitionAuditory cortexWaveformStimulus (psychology)Envelope (radar)Human brainSpeech perceptionAcousticsComputer scienceAudiologyPhysicsPsychologyNeurosciencePerceptionMedicineTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: To evaluate the response of the human auditory cortex to the temporal amplitude-envelope of speech. Responses to the speech envelope could be useful for validating the neural encoding of intelligible speech, particularly during hearing aid fittings—because hearing aid gain and compression characteristics for ongoing speech should more closely resemble real world performance than for isolated brief syllables. Design: The speech envelope comprises energy changes corresponding to phonemic and syllabic transitions. Envelope frequencies between 2 and 20 Hz are important for speech intelligibility. Human event-related potentials were recorded to six different sentences and the sources of these potentials in the auditory cortex were determined. To improve the signal to noise ratio over ongoing electroencephalographic recordings, we averaged the responses over multiple presentations, and derived source waveforms from multichannel scalp recordings. Source analysis led to bilateral, symmetrical, vertical, and horizontal dipoles in the posterior auditory cortices. The source waveforms were then cross-correlated with the low frequency log-envelopes of the sentences. The significance and latency of the maximum correlation for each sentence demonstrated the presence and latency of the brain’s response. The source waveforms were also cross-correlated with a simple model based on a series of overlapping transient responses to stimulus change (the derivative of the log-envelope). Results: Correlations between the log-envelope and vertical dipole source waveforms were significant for all sentences and for all but one of the participants (mean r = 0.35), at an average delay of 175 (left) to 180 (right) msec. Correlations between the transient response model (P1 at 68 msec, N1 at 124 msec, and P2 at 208 msec) and the vertical dipole source waveforms were detected for all sentences and all participants (mean r = 0.30), at an average delay of 6 (right) to 10 (left) msec. Conclusions: These results show that the human auditory cortex either directly follows the speech envelope or consistently reacts to changes in this envelope. The delay between the envelope and the response is approximately 180 msec. The objective of this study was to evaluate the response of the auditory cortex to the temporal amplitude envelope of speech. Event-related potentials were recorded to sentences in a group of young, normal-hearing listeners. Source waveforms in the posterior auditory cortices were cross-correlated with the low frequency log-envelope of each sentence. Significant correlations were detected for all sentences and for all but one of the participants, with the cortical response occurring approximately 180 ms after the stimulus. The results show that the human auditory cortex either directly follows the speech envelope or consistently reacts to changes in this envelope.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.937
Threshold uncertainty score0.560

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0010.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.144
GPT teacher head0.342
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it