Chirp Analyzer for Estimating Amplitude and Latency of Steady-State Auditory Envelope Following Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The envelope following response (EFR) is a clinically relevant evoked potential, reflecting the synchronization of the auditory pathway to the temporal envelope of sounds. Since there is no standard analysis of this potential, we here aim at contrasting the relative accuracy of known time-frequency methods and new strategies for the reliable estimation of the EFR amplitude and latency. METHODS: The EFR was estimated using explicit time-frequency methods: the Short-Term Fourier Transform (STFT) and the Morlet Continuous Wavelet Transform (CWT). Furthermore, the Chirp Analyzer (CA) was introduced as a new tool for the reliable estimation of the EFR. The applicability of the methods was tested in animal and human recordings. RESULTS: Using simulated data for comparing the estimation performance by each method, we found that the CA is able to correctly estimate EFR amplitudes, without the typical bias observed in the STFT estimates. The CA is more robust to noise than the CWT method, although with higher sensitivity to the latency of the response. Thus, the estimation of the EFR amplitude with any of the methods, but especially with CA, should be corrected by using the estimated delay. Analysis of real data confirmed these results and showed that all methods offer estimated EFRs similar to those found in previous studies using the classical Fourier Analyzer. CONCLUSION AND SIGNIFICANCE: The CA is a potential valuable tool for the analysis of the EFR, which could be extended for the estimation of oscillatory evoked potentials of other sensory modalities.
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 | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.001 |
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".