Cortical Auditory Evoked Potentials in Response to Frequency Changes with Varied Magnitude, Rate, and Direction
Classification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, 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".
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
Recent literature on cortical auditory evoked potentials has focused on correlations with hearing performance with the aim to develop an objective clinical tool. However, cortical responses depend on the type of stimulus and choice of stimulus parameters. This study investigates cortical auditory evoked potentials to sound changes, so-called acoustic change complexes (ACC), and the effects of varying three stimulus parameters. In twelve normal-hearing subjects, ACC waveforms were evoked by presenting frequency changes with varying magnitude, rate, and direction. The N1 amplitude and latency were strongly affected by magnitude, which is known from the literature. Importantly, both of these N1 variables were also significantly affected by both rate and direction of the frequency change. Larger and earlier N1 peaks were evoked by increasing the magnitude and rate of the frequency change and with downward rather than upward direction of the frequency change. The P2 amplitude increased with magnitude and depended, to a lesser extent, on rate of the frequency change while direction had no effect on this peak. The N1-P2 interval was not affected by any of the stimulus parameters. In conclusion, the ACC is most strongly affected by magnitude and also substantially by rate and direction of the change. These stimulus dependencies should be considered in choosing stimuli for ACCs as objective clinical measure of hearing performance.
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 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 | 0.008 | 0.009 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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