MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1967026015 · doi:10.2310/7070.2003.37247

Evaluation of the High-Resolution Speech Coding Strategy for the Clarion CII Cochlear Implant System

2003· article· en· W1967026015 on OpenAlexaffvenue
Jodi M. Ostroff, Eytan A. David, David Shipp, Joseph M. Chen, Julian M. Nedzelski

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of Otolaryngology · 2003
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsSunnybrook Health Science Centre
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCochlear implantMedicineCLARIONAudiologyActive listeningSpeech perceptionSpeech codingConsonantSpeech recognitionArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceCommunicationPsychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four postlinguistically deafened adults were implanted with the Clarion CII cochlear implant with the HiFocus II electrode in an evaluation of performance with a new speech coding strategy (high resolution) compared with current speech coding strategies (multiple pulsatile sampler, continuous interleaved sampling, and simultaneous analog stimulation). These strategies were implemented in the Platinum speech processor from Advanced Bionics Corporation (Sylmar, CA). Postoperatively, subjects were fitted with the traditional coding strategies and over the first month were allowed to determine their strategy of choice. This strategy was used to evaluate open-set speech recognition performance at 1 month and 3 months postfitting. At 3 months postfitting, subjects were reprogrammed with the high-resolution strategy. They returned for speech recognition testing at 1 month and 3 months postfitting with this strategy. Performance was significantly better with the high-resolution strategy for all four subjects, particularly when listening to speech in background noise. This finding was in agreement with their strong preference for the high-resolution strategy, and all four patients continue to use the high-resolution strategy.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.001
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 head0.075
GPT teacher head0.319
Teacher spread0.244 · 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

Citations6
Published2003
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of OtolaryngologySame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207