Lateral inhibition and habituation of the human auditory cortex
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The goal of this study was to compare the lateral inhibition and the habituation in the human auditory cortex, two important physiological effects during auditory processing that can be reliably measured by means of magnetoencephalography when recording auditory evoked fields. Applying 40-Hz amplitude-modulated stimuli allowed us to record simultaneously the slow transient evoked and the steady-state fields and thus to characterize the lateral inhibition and the habituation effect in primary and non-primary auditory cortical structures. The main finding of the study is that the lateral inhibition effect of non-primary auditory areas as measured on the major component of the slow transient auditory evoked field (N1) is significantly stronger than the corresponding habituation effect. By contrast, this effect was not observed for the 40-Hz steady-state fields, characterizing the activation of the primary auditory cortex in humans. The results might be interpreted as (i) evidence that the inhibition mediated by lateral connections is stronger than the habituation of excitatory neurons in the non-primary auditory cortex and (ii) the processing hierarchy in the human auditory cortex is demonstrated by the different behaviour of lateral inhibition and habituation in primary and non-primary auditory cortical structures.
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".