Otoacoustic emissions but not behavioral measurements predict cochlear-nerve frequency tuning in an avian vocal-communication specialist
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract Frequency analysis by the cochlea forms a key foundation for all subsequent auditory processing. Stimulus-frequency otoacoustic emissions (SFOAEs) are a potentially powerful alternative to traditional behavioral experiments for estimating cochlear tuning without invasive testing, as is necessary in humans. Which methods accurately predict cochlear tuning remains controversial due to only a single animal study comparing SFOAE-based, behavioral, and cochlear frequency tuning in the same species. The budgerigar ( Melopsittacus undulatus ) is a parakeet species with human-like behavioral sensitivity to many sounds and the capacity to mimic speech. Intriguingly, previous studies of critical bands, psychophysical tuning curves, and critical ratios in budgerigars show that behavioral tuning sharpness increases dramatically with increasing frequency from 1-3.5 kHz, doubling once per octave with peak tuning sharpness from 3.5-4 kHz. The pattern contrasts with slower monotonic growth of behavioral tuning sharpness with increasing frequency in other animals, including most avian species, suggesting a possible auditory specialization in budgerigars. We measured SFOAE-based and cochlear-afferent tuning in budgerigars, for comparison to previously reported behavioral results. SFOAE-based and cochlear-afferent tuning sharpness both increased monotonically and relatively slowly for higher frequencies, in contrast to the behavioral pattern. SFOAE-based tuning in budgerigars accurately predicted cochlear frequency tuning, and both measures aligned with typical patterns of cochlear tuning in other species. Divergent behavioral tuning in budgerigars is unlikely attributable to the periphery and could reflect specializations for central processing of masked signals. Our findings highlight the value of SFOAEs for estimating cochlear tuning and caution against direct inference of peripheral tuning from behavioral critical bands, psychophysical tuning curves, and critical ratios.
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 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| 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 | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 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 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".