MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W1999951627 · doi:10.3766/jaaa.15.8.2

Avoiding Electromagnetic Artifacts When Recording Auditory Steady-State Responses

2004· article· en· W1999951627 on OpenAlexaff
Terence W. Picton, Sasha M. John

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of the American Academy of Audiology · 2004
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeural dynamics and brain function
Canadian institutionsBaycrest HospitalUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAudiologyAcousticsMasking (illustration)Intensity (physics)AmplitudeAliasingElectroencephalographyPhysicsComputer sciencePsychologyFilter (signal processing)NeuroscienceMedicineOpticsComputer vision

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Electromagnetic artifacts can occur when recording multiple auditory steady-state responses evoked by sinusoidally amplitude modulated (SAM) stimuli. High-intensity air-conducted stimuli evoked responses even when hearing was prevented by masking. Additionally, high-intensity bone-conducted stimuli evoked responses that were completely different from those evoked by air-conducted stimuli of similar sensory level. These artifacts were caused by aliasing since they did not occur when recordings used high analog-digital (AD) conversion rates or when high frequencies in the electroencephalographic (EEG) signal were attenuated by steep-slope low-pass filtering. Two possible techniques can displace aliased energy away from the response frequencies: (1) using an AD rate that is not an integer submultiple of the carrier frequencies and (2) using stimuli with frequency spectra that do not alias back to the response frequencies, such as beats or "alternating SAM" tones. Alternating SAM tones evoke responses similar to conventional SAM tones, whereas beats produce significantly smaller responses. Cuando se realizan registros múltiples de respuestas auditivas de estado estable, evocadas por medio de estímulos sinusoidales de amplitud modulada (SAM), se pueden generar artefactos electromagnéticos. Los estímulos por v[ia aérea de alta intensidad evocan estas respuestas aún cuando se enmascare la audición. Además, los estímulos de alta intensidad conducidos por vía ósea también evocaron respuestas que fueron completamente diferentes de aquellas por vía aérea, a niveles sensoriales similares. Estos artefactos fueron causados por relación, dado que no se presentaron cuando los registros se hicieron utilizando tasas altas de conversión analógico-digital (AD), o cuando las frecuencias en la señal electroencefalográfica (EEG) fueron atenuadas por filtros. Existen dos posibles técnicas para desplazar esta energía relacionada de las frecuencias de respuesta: (1) usando una tasa AD que no sea sub-múltiplo entero de las frecuencias portadoras, y (2) usando estímulos con un espectro de frecuencia que no esté relacionado con las frecuencias de la respuesta, tales como las pulsaciones o los tonos SAM alternantes. Los tonos SAM alternantes evocan respuestas similares a los tonos SAM convencionales, mientras que las pulsaciones producen respuestas significativamente menores.

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)0.002
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 score0.149
Threshold uncertainty score0.460

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
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 science0.0010.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
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 head0.029
GPT teacher head0.287
Teacher spread0.257 · 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

Citations51
Published2004
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueJournal of the American Academy of AudiologySame topicNeural dynamics and brain functionFrench-language works237,207