Neural Measures of Pitch Processing in EEG Responses to Running Speech
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Linearized encoding models are increasingly employed to model cortical responses to running speech. Recent extensions to subcortical responses suggest clinical perspectives, potentially complementing auditory brainstem responses (ABRs) or frequency-following responses (FFRs) that are current clinical standards. However, while it is well-known that the auditory brainstem responds both to transient amplitude variations and the stimulus periodicity that gives rise to pitch, these features co-vary in running speech. Here, we discuss challenges in disentangling the features that drive the subcortical response to running speech. Cortical and subcortical electroencephalographic (EEG) responses to running speech from 19 normal-hearing listeners (12 female) were analyzed. Using forward regression models, we confirm that responses to the rectified broadband speech signal yield temporal response functions consistent with wave V of the ABR, as shown in previous work. Peak latency and amplitude of the speech-evoked brainstem response were correlated with standard click-evoked ABRs recorded at the vertex electrode (Cz). Similar responses could be obtained using the fundamental frequency (F0) of the speech signal as model predictor. However, simulations indicated that dissociating responses to temporal fine structure at the F0 from broadband amplitude variations is not possible given the high co-variance of the features and the poor signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) of subcortical EEG responses. In cortex, both simulations and data replicated previous findings indicating that envelope tracking on frontal electrodes can be dissociated from responses to slow variations in F0 (relative pitch). Yet, no association between subcortical F0-tracking and cortical responses to relative pitch could be detected. These results indicate that while subcortical speech responses are comparable to click-evoked ABRs, dissociating pitch-related processing in the auditory brainstem may be challenging with natural speech stimuli.
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 | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| 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".