Low level auditory processing of simple and complex sounds in autism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The documented dissociation between enhanced and diminished auditory processing performance in autistic listeners may be linked to the neural complexity required to process auditory stimuli. To test this hypothesis, four discrimination experiments were designed targeting pitch, spectral envelope, vocal timbre, and loudness. A range of pure- and complex-tone stimuli, with or without frequency or amplitude modulation, varied along spectral and temporal dimensions. An adaptive procedure was used to assess the auditory discrimination thresholds of groups of high-functioning participants with autism (HFA), Asperger syndrome (ASP), and typically developing individuals (TDs). Our research question was whether increasing the level of spectral and/or temporal complexity would have a detrimental impact on autistic listeners' ability to discriminate between acoustic stimuli. Preliminary results suggest that auditory discrimination performance of the latter group is not as dependent on levels of spectro-temporal complexity as originally predicted. The results will be interpreted in the context of current perceptually based models of enhanced and diminished perceptual functioning in autism.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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".