The effect of gap marker bandwidth and level on gap responses from auditory cortex of guinea pigs
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Objective To explore whether and how gap-marker bandwidths and signal levels impact gap responses recorded from the auditory cortex(AC) of guinea pigs. Methods Metal electrodes were implanted in the AC of guinea pigs. The auditory evoked responses to gaps marked with noises of different bandwidths and presented at three levels were recorded one week after the surgery. Results The gap response threshold from the AC of guinea pigs was comparable to that obtained from the behavioral results reported previously. At the same presentation level, the gap-response threshold was found to be decreased with increasing gap-marker bandwidth. At 80 dB SPL, for example, the thresholds were found to be 4.23 ± 1.01 ms, 2.92 ± 0.89 ms and 2.04 ± 0.80 ms for the bands of 0.5-8 kHz, 0.5-16 kHz and 0.5-32 kHz, respectively. However, the gap response thresholds in responses to the highest frequency band (16 -32 kHz) were found not to be significantly different from that to the low-frequency band gaps with equal bandwidth in linear scale(0.5 -16 kHz). Within the same noise band, the gap response threshold decreased with the increase in sound intensity (presentation level). However, this effect was only significant in the lowest frequency band observed. In addition, the supra-threshold gap response amplitude was found to be increased and the latency shortened with increasing gap marker bandwidth. Conclusion Gap marker bandwidth and level have significant effect on the gap response threshold, supra-threshold gap response amplitude and latency. The effect of gap marker parameters on gap response should be taken into account when comparing results from different studies.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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".