MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2000233101 · doi:10.1121/1.4906250

Influence of the stimulus presentation rate on medial olivocochlear system assays

2015· article· en· W2000233101 on OpenAlexafffund
Sriram Boothalingam, David W. Purcell

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsWestern University
FundersNatural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of CanadaOklahoma Agricultural Experiment Station
KeywordsAudiologyStimulus (psychology)NeurosciencePsychologyMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Click evoked otoacoustic emissions (CEOAEs) are commonly used both in research and clinics to assay the medial olivocochlear system (MOC). Clicks presented at rates >50 Hz in the contralateral ear have previously been reported to evoke contralateral MOC activity. However, in typical MOC assays, clicks are presented in the ipsilateral ear in conjunction with MOC elicitor (noise) in the contralateral ear. The effect of click rates in such an arrangement is currently unknown. A forward masking paradigm was used to emulate typical MOC assays to elucidate the influence of ipsilateral click presentation rates on MOC inhibition of CEOAEs in 28 normal hearing adults. Influence of five click rates (20.83, 25, 31.25, 41.67, and 62.5 Hz) presented at 55 dB peSPL was tested. Results indicate that click rates as low as 31.25 Hz significantly enhance contralateral MOC inhibition, possibly through the activation of ipsilateral and binaural MOC neurons with potential contributions from the middle ear muscle reflex. Therefore, click rates ≤25 Hz are recommended for use in MOC assays, at least for 55 dB peSPL click level.

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: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.002
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.000

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 head0.034
GPT teacher head0.292
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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

Citations38
Published2015
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of AmericaSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207