Age Differences in the Neuroelectric Adaptation to Meaningful Sounds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Much of what we know regarding the effect of stimulus repetition on neuroelectric adaptation comes from studies using artificially produced pure tones or harmonic complex sounds. Little is known about the neural processes associated with the representation of everyday sounds and how these may be affected by aging. In this study, we used real life, meaningful sounds presented at various azimuth positions and found that auditory evoked responses peaking at about 100 and 180 ms after sound onset decreased in amplitude with stimulus repetition. This neural adaptation was greater in young than in older adults and was more pronounced when the same sound was repeated at the same location. Moreover, the P2 waves showed differential patterns of domain-specific adaptation when location and identity was repeated among young adults. Background noise decreased ERP amplitudes and modulated the magnitude of repetition effects on both the N1 and P2 amplitude, and the effects were comparable in young and older adults. These findings reveal an age-related difference in the neural processes associated with adaptation to meaningful sounds, which may relate to older adults' difficulty in ignoring task-irrelevant stimuli.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".