Individual Differences in the Frequency-Following Response: Relation to Pitch Perception
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The scalp-recorded frequency-following response (FFR) is a measure of the auditory nervous system's representation of periodic sound, and may serve as a marker of training-related enhancements, behavioural deficits, and clinical conditions. However, FFRs of healthy normal subjects show considerable variability that remains unexplained. We investigated whether the FFR representation of the frequency content of a complex tone is related to the perception of the pitch of the fundamental frequency. The strength of the fundamental frequency in the FFR of 39 people with normal hearing was assessed when they listened to complex tones that either included or lacked energy at the fundamental frequency. We found that the strength of the fundamental representation of the missing fundamental tone complex correlated significantly with people's general tendency to perceive the pitch of the tone as either matching the frequency of the spectral components that were present, or that of the missing fundamental. Although at a group level the fundamental representation in the FFR did not appear to be affected by the presence or absence of energy at the same frequency in the stimulus, the two conditions were statistically distinguishable for some subjects individually, indicating that the neural representation is not linearly dependent on the stimulus content. In a second experiment using a within-subjects paradigm, we showed that subjects can learn to reversibly select between either fundamental or spectral perception, and that this is accompanied both by changes to the fundamental representation in the FFR and to cortical-based gamma activity. These results suggest that both fundamental and spectral representations coexist, and are available for later auditory processing stages, the requirements of which may also influence their relative strength and thus modulate FFR variability. The data also highlight voluntary mode perception as a new paradigm with which to study top-down vs bottom-up mechanisms that support the emerging view of the FFR as the outcome of integrated processing in the entire auditory system.
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) | 0.002 | 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".