Event-Related Potential Measures of a Violation of an Expected Increase and Decrease in Intensity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Unexpected physical increases in the intensity of a frequently occurring "standard" auditory stimulus are experienced as obtrusive. This could either be because of a physical change, the increase in intensity of the "deviant" stimulus, or a psychological change, the violation of the expectancy for the occurrence of the lower intensity standard stimulus. Two experiments were run in which event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded to determine whether "psychological" increments (violation of an expectancy for a lower intensity) would be processed differently than psychological decrements (violation of an expectancy for a higher intensity). Event-related potentials (ERPs) were recorded while subjects were presented with auditory tones that alternated between low and high intensity. The subjects ignored the auditory stimuli while watching a video. Deviants were created by repeating the same stimulus. In the first experiment, pairs of stimuli alternating in intensity, were presented in separate increment (H-L...H-L...H-H...H-L, in which H = 80 dB SPL and L = 60 dB SPL) and decrement conditions (L-H...L-H...L-L... L-H, in which H = 90 dB SPL and L = 80 dB SPL). The paradigm employed in the second experiment consisted of an alternating intensity pattern (H-L-H-L-H-H-H-L) or (H-L-H-L-L-L-H-L). Importantly, the stimulus prior to the deviant (the standard) and the actual deviants in both increment and decrement conditions in both experiments were physically identical (80 dB SPL tones). The repetition of the lower intensity tone therefore acted as a psychological rather than a physical decrement (a higher intensity tone was expected) while the repetition of the higher intensity tone acted as a psychological increment (a lower intensity tone was expected). The psychological increments in both experiments elicited a larger amplitude mismatch negativity (MMN) than the decrements. Thus, regardless of whether an acoustic change signals a physical increase in intensity or violates an expected decrease in intensity, a large MMN will be elicited.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".