Attentional Modulation of Envelope-Following Responses at Lower (93–109 Hz) but Not Higher (217–233 Hz) Modulation Rates
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Directing attention to sounds of different frequencies allows listeners to perceive a sound of interest, like a talker, in a mixture. Whether cortically generated frequency-specific attention affects responses as low as the auditory brainstem is currently unclear. Participants attended to either a high- or low-frequency tone stream, which was presented simultaneously and tagged with different amplitude modulation (AM) rates. In a replication design, we showed that envelope-following responses (EFRs) were modulated by attention only when the stimulus AM rate was slow enough for the auditory cortex to track-and not for stimuli with faster AM rates, which are thought to reflect 'purer' brainstem sources. Thus, we found no evidence of frequency-specific attentional modulation that can be confidently attributed to brainstem generators. The results demonstrate that different neural populations contribute to EFRs at higher and lower rates, compatible with cortical contributions at lower rates. The results further demonstrate that stimulus AM rate can alter conclusions of EFR 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.
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 | 0.006 | 0.011 |
| 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 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 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 it