Effects of Hearing Aid Amplification and Stimulus Intensity on Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Hearing aid amplification can be used as a model for studying the effects of auditory stimulation on the central auditory system (CAS). We examined the effects of stimulus presentation level on the physiological detection of sound in unaided and aided conditions. P1, N1, P2, and N2 cortical evoked potentials were recorded in sound field from 13 normal-hearing young adults in response to a 1000-Hz tone presented at seven stimulus intensity levels. As expected, peak amplitudes increased and peak latencies decreased with increasing intensity for unaided and aided conditions. However, there was no significant effect of amplification on latencies or amplitudes. Taken together, these results demonstrate that 20 dB of hearing aid gain affects neural responses differently than 20 dB of stimulus intensity change. Hearing aid signal processing is discussed as a possible contributor to these results. This study demonstrates (1) the importance of controlling for stimulus intensity when evoking responses in aided conditions, and (2) the need to better understand the interaction between the hearing aid and the CAS.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| 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".