Physiological tests measure neural representation, not actual hearing

Evidence

It seems to follow from the very blueprint of our auditory system that much of what we call “hearing” has to do with the internal bureaucracy of the auditory planet. — George Michelsen Foy, Zero Decibels, 561 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Unlike physiological experiments, where we can measure the response elicited by a single stimulus, a masking study always involves at least two sounds: a signal and a masker. The signal is the sound being detected, whereas the masker is the interfering sound. Often the signal is a pure tone, but in principle, it can be any type of sound, such as speech and complex sounds. The same is true for the masker; it can be any type of sound such as noise, speech, or tones. In these studies, by measuring the influence of a masker on a signal, we can make inferences about how the signal or the masker is represented by the auditory system. — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 441 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Electrode pairs are judged discriminable only when performance exceeds chance; Brainstem threshold responses cannot predict a patient’s functional hearing ability.; Objective brainstem measures may detect functional hearing changes before permanent threshold shifts appear. (+4 more)

Related

• Masking experiments infer auditory representation from masker effects on signals. (similarity 0.86)
• Controlled experiments trace sound-feature variables against listeners’ behavioral responses (similarity 0.85)
• Physiological tests measure sound representation, never the perception itself (similarity 0.85)
• Masker effectiveness is determined solely by power falling within one auditory filter. (similarity 0.84)
• Masking reduces to a comparison of excitation-level patterns over frequency and time (similarity 0.83)
• Masking patterns reveal the ear’s internal psychological representation of a sound. (similarity 0.83)
• Masking measurements require noise slopes steeper than the ear’s own selectivity (similarity 0.82)
• Masking noise prevents listeners from using unintended spectral cues (similarity 0.82)
• A masker raises the audibility threshold of a test sound. (similarity 0.82)
• Masking operates on a continuous scale between audible and fully masked. (similarity 0.82)
• Masking experiments revealed the auditory filter underlying frequency selectivity (similarity 0.82)
• Complex QMF resolution must be supplemented to match auditory frequency selectivity (similarity 0.81)
• Each masker dominates masking only within its own frequency region. (similarity 0.81)
• Three acoustic properties determine whether a sound masks another. (similarity 0.81)
• Hearing loss reduces the effect of inherent noise fluctuations on speech masking. (similarity 0.81)

Broader Connections

• Hearing is mostly internal neural processing, not raw external sound reception #corroborates (0.85) — George Michelsen Foy, Zero Decibels, 561
• Masking experiments infer auditory representation from masker effects on signals. #corroborates (0.80) — Jennifer Lentz, Psychoacoustics- Perception of Normal…, 441
• Auditory sensitivity varies nonuniformly across the frequency range #corroborates (0.75)