Montage-related Variability in the Characteristics of Envelope Following Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The study aimed to compare two electrode montages commonly used for recording speech-evoked envelope following responses. DESIGN: Twenty-three normal-hearing adults participated in this study. EFRs were elicited by a naturally spoken, modified /susa∫i/ stimulus presented at 65 dB SPL monaurally. EFRs were recorded using two single-channel electrode montages: Cz-nape and Fz-ipsilateral mastoid, where the noninverting and inverting sites were the vertex and nape, and the high forehead and ipsilateral mastoid, respectively. Montage order was counterbalanced across participants. RESULTS: Envelope following responses amplitude and phase coherence were significantly higher overall in the Cz-nape montage with no significant differences in noise amplitude. Post hoc testing on montage effects in response amplitude and phase coherence was not significant for individual stimuli. The Cz-nape montage also resulted in a greater number of detections and analyzed using the Hotelling's T2. CONCLUSIONS: Electrode montage influences the estimated characteristics of speech-evoked EFRs.
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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| 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) | 0.000 | 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 itClassification
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".