Signal duration modulates age differences in neuromagnetic brain activity associated with concurrent sound segregation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Listeners' ability to parse concurrent sounds is a prerequisite in solving the cocktail party problem. Here, we examine whether deficits in periodicity coding can account for older adults' difficulties in understanding speech in noise. In two experiments, we measured auditory evoked fields (AEFs) while young and older adults listened to complex sounds that either had all of their harmonics in tune or had the third harmonic mistuned by 4 or 16% of its original value. For each participant, the AEFs were modeled with a pair of dipoles in auditory cortex and the effects of age on the resulting source waveforms were examined. Older adults were less likely to report hearing the mistuned harmonic as a separate sound than young adults, but only for short duration signals (50 ms). This age difference was paralleled by reduced neuromagnetic activity indexing the processing of the mistuned harmonic. For longer duration signals (e.g., 200 ms), older adults show comparable amplitude, but a delay in latency. These findings show an age-related decline in concurrent sound perception based on harmonicity, which could partly be alleviated by increasing signal duration. The implications of these findings for speech perception in noise will be discussed.
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 | 0.002 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".