The Influence of Sensation Level on Speech-Evoked Envelope Following Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To evaluate sensation level (SL)-dependent characteristics of envelope following responses (EFRs) elicited by band-limited speech dominant in low, mid, and high frequencies. DESIGN: In 21 young normal hearing adults, EFRs were elicited by 8 male-spoken speech stimuli-the first formant, and second and higher formants of /u/, /a/ and /i/, and modulated fricatives, /∫/ and /s/. Stimulus SL was computed from behaviorally measured thresholds. RESULTS: At 30 dB SL, the amplitude and phase coherence of fricative-elicited EFRs were ~1.5 to 2 times higher than all vowel-elicited EFRs, whereas fewer and smaller differences were found among vowel-elicited EFRs. For all stimuli, EFR amplitude and phase coherence increased by roughly 50% for every 10 dB increase in SL between ~0 and 50 dB. CONCLUSIONS: Stimulus and frequency dependency in EFRs exist despite accounting for differences in audibility of speech sounds. The growth rate of EFR characteristics with SL is independent of stimulus and its frequency.
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) | 0.000 | 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) | 0.002 | 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".