Envelope following responses to Schroeder-phase harmonic stimuli
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Recent studies suggest that peripheral nonlinearities only partially account for the envelope-following response (EFR) recorded at the scalp, with additional contributions from broadly tuned neurons in the central nervous system. The present study investigated this by measuring EFR to low and high-frequency stimuli designed to (1) optimize within-channel phase synchrony to produce maximal envelope modulation depth on the basilar membrane, or (2) optimize phase synchrony across multiple frequency channels to maximize envelope-related activity arising in the central nervous system. EFR was recorded in normal-hearing listeners using Schroeder-phase stimuli with harmonic components constrained to low and high-frequency ranges, as well to multi-frequency sinusoidally amplitude modulated tones as a function of component phase. Estimates of basilar membrane phase curvature varied across individuals. Response amplitudes and phase-locking values for the EFR varied as a function of carrier frequency range and component phase. The present results are consistent with an understanding of scalp-recorded EFR as a measure of central envelope processing extending beyond the initial encoding of the stimulus envelope arising in the periphery. The scalp-recorded EFR is thus not a direct index of envelope encoding in the auditory nerve.
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".