The Role of Sound in Adult and Developmental Auditory Cortical Plasticity
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In Brief The purpose of the current review is to highlight the role of the acoustic environment in auditory cortical plasticity. In order do this we have reviewed our past studies on auditory cortical plasticity based on long-latency evoked potential recordings in humans following cochlear implantation, and multiple single-unit recordings from cat auditory cortex following noise trauma and exposure to a non-deafening acoustic environment. The results of these studies, and those of other investigators highlighted here, show that the auditory cortex shows plastic changes throughout life. Those that occur during maturation are typically considered the most profound and long lasting. In that case plasticity is beneficial as it allows adaptation to behaviorally important sound and adapts easily to changes induced by deafness and subsequent application of hearing aids or cochlear implants. In children as well as adults, changes in cortical representation of frequency can occur following hearing loss, but may be accompanied by unpleasant side effects such as tinnitus. Long exposure to a spectrally enhanced acoustic environment of moderate sound level that does not cause hearing loss paradoxically also results in pronounced changes in the cortical tonotopic maps. These changes are very similar to those following noise trauma. This review provides evidence that in adults, long-lasting plastic changes in auditory cortex occur even in the absence of behaviorally relevant acoustic stimulation. However, in children, the long lasting absence of auditory stimulation arrests cortical development. This review summarizes results from experiments specifically designed to address issues of cortical plasticity following cochlear implantation in humans and following noise exposure or trauma in animals. The review highlights what might be considered the positive adaptive responses of the cortex during development and after hearing loss with the potentially more challenging alterations in cortical response which occur in maturity and as a result of external influences such as noise exposure and amplification.
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) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
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".