Phase‐locked responses to the vowel envelope vary in scalp‐recorded amplitude due to across‐frequency response interactions
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Neural encoding of the envelope of sounds like vowels is essential to access temporal information useful for speech recognition. Subcortical responses to envelope periodicity of vowels can be assessed using scalp-recorded envelope following responses (EFRs); however, the amplitude of EFRs vary by vowel spectra and the causal relationship is not well understood. One cause for spectral dependency could be interactions between responses with different phases, initiated by multiple stimulus frequencies. Phase differences can arise from earlier initiation of processing high frequencies relative to low frequencies in the cochlea. This study investigated the presence of such phase interactions by measuring EFRs to two naturally spoken vowels (/ε/ and /u/), while delaying the envelope phase of the second formant band (F2+) relative to the first formant (F1) band in 45° increments. At 0° F2+ phase delay, EFRs elicited by the vowel /ε/ were lower in amplitude than the EFRs elicited by /u/. Using vector computations, we found that the lower amplitude of /ε/-EFRs was caused by linear superposition of F1- and F2+-contributions with larger F1-F2+ phase differences (166°) compared to /u/ (19°). While the variation in amplitude across F2+ phase delays could be modeled with two dominant EFR sources for both vowels, the degree of variation was dependent on F1 and F2+ EFR characteristics. Together, we demonstrate that (a) broadband sounds like vowels elicit independent responses from different stimulus frequencies that may be out-of-phase and affect scalp-based measurements, and (b) delaying higher frequency formants can maximize EFR amplitudes for some vowels.
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 | 0.000 |
| 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".