MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2011850848 · doi:10.1121/1.1354202

Suppression of distortion product otoacoustic emissions and hearing threshold

2001· article· en· W2011850848 on OpenAlexaff
Martin Pienkowski, Hans Kunov

Bibliographic record

VenueThe Journal of the Acoustical Society of America · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcousticsDistortion (music)Otoacoustic emissionAudiologyEnvironmental scienceComputer scienceHearing lossMedicinePhysicsTelecommunications

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

A distortion product otoacoustic emission (DPOAE) suppression tuning curve (STC) shows the minimum level of suppressor tone that is required to reduce DPOAE level by a fixed amount, as a function of suppressor frequency. Several years ago, Mills [J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 103, 507-523 (1998)] derived, theoretically, an approximately linear relationship between the tip-to-tail suppressor level difference on a DPOAE STC, and the gain of the cochlear amplifier, defined as the maximum increase in the active over the passive basilar membrane (BM) response. In this paper, preliminary data from adult human subjects are presented that establish a correlation between this tip-to-tail DPOAE STC difference and the threshold of hearing, the latter measured at the frequency of the f2 primary tone. Assuming that both suppression and the DPOAE are by-products of active, nonlinear BM dynamics, the above result suggests that threshold elevation in mild levels of hearing loss may be attributed, in part, to a reduction of cochlear amplifier gain, which is detectable with the suppression paradigm.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
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 score0.004

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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 head0.036
GPT teacher head0.289
Teacher spread0.253 · 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

Citations22
Published2001
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

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