MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4402043879 · doi:10.1101/2024.08.29.610326

Otoacoustic emissions but not behavioral measurements predict cochlear-nerve frequency tuning in an avian vocal-communication specialist

2024· preprint· en· W4402043879 on OpenAlexaff
Diana M Karosas, Leslie Gonzales, Yingxuan Wang, Christopher Bergevin, Laurel H. Carney, Kenneth S. Henry

Bibliographic record

VenuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory) · 2024
Typepreprint
Languageen
FieldBiochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology
TopicAnimal Vocal Communication and Behavior
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersNational Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders
KeywordsCochleaAudiologyCochlear nerveStimulus (psychology)AcousticsComputer sciencePsychologyPhysicsMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: Observational
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.006
Threshold uncertainty score0.011

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.054
GPT teacher head0.300
Teacher spread0.246 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2024
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuebioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)Same topicAnimal Vocal Communication and BehaviorFrench-language works237,207