The gap‐startle paradigm to assess auditory temporal processing: Bridging animal and human research
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The gap-prepulse inhibition of the acoustic startle (GPIAS) paradigm is the primary test used in animal research to identify gap detection thresholds and impairment. When a silent gap is presented shortly before a loud startling stimulus, the startle reflex is inhibited and the extent of inhibition is assumed to reflect detection. Here, we applied the same paradigm in humans. One hundred and fifty-seven normal-hearing participants were tested using one of five gap durations (5, 25, 50, 100, 200 ms) in one of the following two paradigms-gap-embedded in or gap-following-the continuous background noise. The duration-inhibition relationship was observable for both conditions but followed different patterns. In the gap-embedded paradigm, GPIAS increased significantly with gap duration up to 50 ms and then more slowly up to 200 ms (trend only). In contrast, in the gap-following paradigm, significant inhibition-different from 0--was observable only at gap durations from 50 to 200 ms. The finding that different patterns are found depending on gap position within the background noise is compatible with distinct mechanisms underlying each of the two paradigms.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 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".