MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2885735837 · doi:10.1016/j.heares.2018.08.001

No otoacoustic evidence for a peripheral basis of absolute pitch

2018· article· en· W2885735837 on OpenAlexafffund
Larissa McKetton, David W. Purcell, Victoria Stone, Jessica A. Grahn, Christopher Bergevin

Bibliographic record

VenueHearing Research · 2018
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityYork University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOklahoma Agricultural Experiment StationCanada Foundation for InnovationHealth Research Board
KeywordsAudiologyFrequency selectivityCochleaStimulus (psychology)Phase differenceSignificant differencePeripheralOtoacoustic emissionPsychoacousticsPerceptionPhysicsAcousticsHearing lossPsychologyMedicinePhase (matter)NeuroscienceInternal medicineEngineeringCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Absolute pitch (AP) is the ability to identify the perceived pitch of a sound without an external reference. Relatively rare, with an incidence of approximately 1/10,000, the mechanisms underlying AP are not well understood. This study examined otoacoustic emissions (OAEs) to determine if there is evidence of a peripheral (i.e., cochlear) basis for AP. Two OAE types were examined: spontaneous emissions (SOAEs) and stimulus-frequency emissions (SFOAEs). Our motivations to explore a peripheral foundation for AP were several-fold. First is the observation that pitch judgment accuracy has been reported to decrease with age due to age-dependent physiological changes cochlear biomechanics. Second is the notion that SOAEs, which are indirectly related to perception, could act as a fixed frequency reference. Third, SFOAE delays, which have been demonstrated to serve as a proxy measure for cochlear frequency selectivity, could indicate tuning differences between groups. These led us to the hypotheses that AP subjects would (relative to controls) exhibit a. greater SOAE activity and b. sharper cochlear tuning. To test these notions, measurements were made in normal-hearing control (N = 33) and AP-possessor (N = 20) populations. In short, no substantial difference in SOAE activity was found between groups, indicating no evidence for one or more strong SOAEs that could act as a fixed cue. SFOAE phase-gradient delays, measured at several different probe levels (20-50 dB SPL), also showed no significant differences between groups. This observation argues against sharper cochlear frequency selectivity in AP subjects. Taken together, these data support the prevailing view that AP mechanisms predominantly arise at a processing level in the central nervous system (CNS) at the brainstem or higher, not within the cochlea.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.013
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMetaresearch
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.557
Threshold uncertainty score0.995

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.013
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.382
GPT teacher head0.488
Teacher spread0.105 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations6
Published2018
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueHearing ResearchSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207