The effects of stimulus parameters on the auditory brainstem response of zebrafish (<i>Danio rerio</i>)
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In mammals and birds it is well documented that stimulus parameters have significant effects on auditory processing. However in fish, the effect of different stimulus types remains unclear. Therefore it is difficult to directly compare piscine auditory responses obtained by different investigators, due to variability in testing methods. The current study uses zebrafish (Danio rerio) to evaluate the effects of stimulus type (800 Hz tone bursts versus broadband stimuli from 100–4000 Hz) and stimulus duration (1, 5, 10, or 20 ms) on the auditory brainstem response (ABR). Threshold was significantly lower (p=0.04) for broadband sounds than for tones, but there was no effect on either latency or amplitude. There was a direct and significant effect of duration on threshold (p=0.001), suggesting the response was due to the offset rather than the onset of the stimulus. Duration had no effect on either threshold or amplitude. The stimulus level had no significant effect on latency, however amplitude significantly increased as level increased (p=0.001). Thus, stimulus parameters can significantly affect ABRs. The current findings show the need for a consistent method of testing among investigators in order to reliably compare results. [Work supported by NSERC.]
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 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 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".