MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1995150707 · doi:10.1121/1.2404915

Physiological detection of interaural phase differences

2007· article· en· W1995150707 on OpenAlexaff
Bernhard Roß, Kelly L. Tremblay, Terence W. Picton

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2007
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
FundersFondation Pour l'Audition
KeywordsBinaural recordingMagnetoencephalographyAudiologyBrainstemSound localizationAuditory brainstem responseInteraural time differenceAmplitudePsychologyElectroencephalographyMedicinePhysicsNeuroscienceHearing loss

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Auditory evoked cortical responses to changes in the interaural phase difference (IPD) were recorded using magnetoencephalography (MEG). Twelve normal-hearing young adults were tested with amplitude-modulated tones with carrier frequencies of 500, 1000, 1250, and 1500 Hz. The onset of the stimuli evoked P1m-N1m-P2m cortical responses, as did the changes in the interaural phase. Significant responses to IPD changes were identified at 500 and 1000 Hz in all subjects and at 1250 Hz in nine subjects, whereas responses were absent in all subjects at 1500 Hz, indicating a group mean threshold for detecting IPDs of 1250 Hz. Behavioral thresholds were found at 1200 Hz using an adaptive two alternative forced choice procedure. Because the physiological responses require phase information, through synchronous bilateral inputs at the level of the auditory brainstem, physiological "change" detection thresholds likely reflect the upper limit of phase synchronous activity in the brainstem. The procedure has potential applications in investigating impaired binaural processing because phase statistic applied to single epoch MEG data allowed individual thresholds to be obtained.

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 imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.001
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.156
Threshold uncertainty score0.365

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.001
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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 head0.037
GPT teacher head0.317
Teacher spread0.280 · 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 teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
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

Citations75
Published2007
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207