Cochlear Place Specificity of the Auditory Brainstem Response to Narrowband Chirp versus 2-1-2 stimuli: High Pass Noise/Derived Responses
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: In recent years, many researchers have recommended using narrowband chirp (NBchirp) stimuli for auditory brainstem response (ABR) audiometry instead of more-standard 2-1-2 cycles linear-gated tones, primarily because NBchirps often result in larger ABR wave V amplitudes. However, the acoustic frequency spectra of currently recommended NBchirps are wider than those for 2-1-2 tones, and it is currently not known whether ABRs to these NBchirps have similar (or poorer) cochlear place specificity compared with 2-1-2 tones. The present study used the high-pass noise/derived response technique to assess the cochlear regions contributing to ABRs evoked by NBchirp versus 2-1-2 stimuli. DESIGN: A total of 24 adults with normal hearing participated (N = 12 for each stimulus frequency). Stimuli were 60-dB pe SPL 500- and 2000-Hz NBchirps and 2-1-2 linear-gated tones mixed with high-pass (HP) filtered masking noise. The level of broadband (pink) noise required to mask the ABR was determined individually; then the broadband noise at this level was HP-filtered at ½-octave intervals. At least 3 ABR replications were obtained for each condition, with recordings stopped when the residual noise level of each replication was reduced to about 40 nV, with the goal of the average of all replications having a residual noise of about 23 nV (for HP noise-masked conditions). Derived responses (DRs) representing 1-octave-wide or ½-octave-wide cochlear regions were calculated by subtracting ABRs recorded in HP noise. RESULTS: Non-masked ABR amplitudes in response to NBchirps were significantly larger than those to 2-1-2 stimuli, averaging 55% larger for 500 Hz and 81% larger for 2000 Hz. For both 500- and 2000-Hz stimuli, HP noise masking produced significant amplitude decreases, occurring 1 to ½ octave higher for ABRs to NBchirps versus 2-1-2 tones. One-octave-wide and ½-octave-wide DR amplitude profiles for the ABRs to 2-1-2 tones showed good cochlear place specificity, as described in previous studies. DR results for the NBchirps were similar but showed important differences. The profiles for the 2000-Hz NBchirps showed significantly larger amplitudes in the 4- and 1-kHz DRs compared with the 2-1-2 stimuli. Many more responses were seen 1 octave away for the 2000-Hz NBchirp compared with the 2-1-2 tone. DR results for 500-Hz tones showed similar patterns, but differences did not quite reach statistical significance, except that amplitudes to NBchirps were larger at DR354, DR500, and DR707. A measure of the width of the 1-octave-wide and ½-octave-wide DR amplitude profiles (BW0.075, in Hz) showed that the 500- and 2000-Hz NBchirp profiles were significantly wider (32 to 77%) compared with those for 2-1-2 stimuli. As the cochlear area able to respond decreased, wave V amplitudes to NBchirp stimuli decreased more than those for 2-1-2 stimuli, with smaller differences between stimuli for ½-octave-wide responses. Objective estimates of response signal to noise ratio supported the wave V amplitude results, with some differences. CONCLUSIONS: ABRs to NBchirps reflect wider cochlear contributions than those to 2-1-2 tones. Responses to NBchirps arise from cochlear regions as far as one octave away from the stimulus frequency. In contrast, responses to 2-1-2 tones arise from cochlear regions primarily within approximately ±0.5 octaves of the stimulus frequency. Further research in individuals with hearing loss, especially with steep hearing loss, is required to determine whether the wider bandwidths for NBchirps result in threshold misestimation and whether NBchirp amplitude advantages over more-standard stimuli remain with hearing loss.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
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".