Mammalian behavior and physiology converge to confirm sharper cochlear tuning in humans
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
Frequency analysis of sound by the cochlea is the most fundamental property of the auditory system. Despite its importance, the resolution of this frequency analysis in humans remains controversial. The controversy persists because the methods used to estimate tuning in humans are indirect and have not all been independently validated in other species. Some data suggest that human cochlear tuning is considerably sharper than that of laboratory animals, while others suggest little or no difference between species. We show here in a single species (ferret) that behavioral estimates of tuning bandwidths obtained using perceptual masking methods, and objective estimates obtained using otoacoustic emissions, both also employed in humans, agree closely with direct physiological measurements from single auditory-nerve fibers. Combined with human behavioral data, this outcome indicates that the frequency analysis performed by the human cochlea is of significantly higher resolution than found in common laboratory animals. This finding raises important questions about the evolutionary origins of human cochlear tuning, its role in the emergence of speech communication, and the mechanisms underlying our ability to separate and process natural sounds in complex acoustic environments.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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