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 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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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".