MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2018474929 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31819003ef

Multiple Auditory Steady State Responses (80-101 Hz): Effects of Ear, Gender, Handedness, Intensity and Modulation Rate

2008· article· en· W2018474929 on OpenAlexafffund
Terence W. Picton, Patricia Van Roon, M. Sasha John

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2008
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, Genetics
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Toronto
FundersCanadian Institutes of Health Research
KeywordsDichotic listeningStimulus (psychology)AudiologyStimulationIntensity (physics)MedicinePsychologyPhysicsInternal medicineOptics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: To evaluate how the amplitudes and latencies of auditory steady state responses (ASSRs) to multiple stimuli presented at rates between 80 and 101 Hz vary with the ear of stimulation, the handedness or gender of a subject, and the rate and intensity of the stimuli. Design: ASSRs were recorded in a group of 56 young adults (27 females, 13 left handed) using several stimulus conditions. In the two main conditions, four sinusoidally amplitude-modulated tones (each uniquely modulated using rates between 80 and 105 Hz) with carrier frequencies of 500, 1000, 2000, and 4000 Hz, were presented concurrently to each ear (eight total). In the first condition the modulation rates for the left ear were slower than those for the right and in the second condition this relationship was reversed. Other conditions evaluated the responses to single stimuli, to multiple stimuli presented in one ear only and to multiple stimuli presented dichotically (four in each ear) with rates that decreased rather than increased with increasing carrier frequency. Stimuli were presented at an intensity of 73 dB SPL except in two conditions wherein the intensity was 53 dB SPL. Results: At 73 dB SPL, multiple-stimulus ASSRs were significantly reduced (monotic or dichotic) compared with single-stimulus ASSRs, especially at 1000 and 2000 Hz. There were significant differences between monotic and dichotic stimulation. When the stimuli were presented dichotically, the amplitude of the response varied with the relative rates of modulation for the stimuli presented in each ear. ASSRs were larger in the ear with the higher rate when the carrier frequencies were 500 and 1000 Hz and when the modulation rates were <90 Hz. There were no consistent effects of gender or ear of stimulation. There were also no significant effects of handedness. Conclusions: Presenting multiple stimuli at 73 dB SPL in the same ear decreases the amplitude of the ASSR compared with when the stimuli are presented singly. This is caused by the masking effect of low on higher carrier frequencies and some other inhibitory effect of high on lower frequencies. Dichotic stimulation can increase the amplitude of the response to stimuli modulated more rapidly (and concomitantly decrease the responses to the stimuli modulated more slowly). This effect occurs only for carrier frequencies <2000 Hz and for modulation frequencies <90 Hz. Dichotic stimulation also causes a small but highly significant decrease in the latency of the response compared with monotic stimulation. Auditory steady-state responses to multiple stimuli presented simultaneously are affected by the intensity frequency and rate of the stimuli. At 73 dB SPL, multiple stimuli presented simultaneously evoke smaller responses than when the stimuli are presented singly, particularly for carrier frequencies 1000 and 2000 Hz. Dichotically presented stimuli evoke responses 0.3 msec earlier than monotically presented stimuli. When stimuli with the same carrier frequency but different modulation rates are presented to the two ears, the stimulus with the faster modulation rate will evoke a larger response, provided the carrier frequency is less than 2000 Hz and the modulation rate less than 90 Hz. Gender, handedness and ear of stimulation do not consistently alter the responses.

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)0.000
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: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.630
Threshold uncertainty score0.637

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.001
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)0.0000.000

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 head0.070
GPT teacher head0.276
Teacher spread0.206 · 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

Citations33
Published2008
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing, Cochlea, Tinnitus, GeneticsFrench-language works237,207