MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Human Auditory Steady-State Responses to Tones Independently Modulated in Both Frequency and Amplitude

2001· article· en· W2018581673 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2001
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsUniversity of TorontoBaycrest Hospital
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAmplitude modulationAudiologyFrequency modulationModulation (music)AmplitudePsychologyTone (literature)PhysicsCommunicationAcousticsOpticsComputer scienceMedicineTelecommunicationsRadio frequency

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Independent amplitude and frequency modulation (IAFM) of a carrier tone uses two different modulating frequencies, one for amplitude modulation (AM) and one for frequency modulation (FM). This study measured the human steady-state responses to multiple IAFM tones. The first question was whether the IAFM responses could be recorded without attenuation of the AM and FM components. The second question was whether IAFM stimuli would provide a more effective demonstration of responses at intensities near threshold than the responses to AM tones. The third question was whether the responses to multiple IAFM stimuli would relate to the discrimination of words at different intensities. DESIGN: Multiple AM, FM, or IAFM stimuli were presented simultaneously. Responses were recorded between the vertex and the neck and analysed in the frequency domain. The first experiment compared IAFM responses with AM and FM responses. The second experiment compared IAFM responses with AM responses between intensities 20 to 50 dB SPL. The third experiment related the IAFM responses to the discrimination of monosyllabic words at intensities between 20 and 70 dB SPL. RESULTS: Steady-state responses to the individual component of the IAFM stimuli were clearly recognizable although attenuated a little (14%) from the responses to AM or FM alone. Using IAFM stimuli was not different than simply using AM stimuli when trying to recognize responses at low intensities. The number of responses detected during multiple IAFM stimulation and the amplitudes of these responses correlated significantly with word discrimination. CONCLUSIONS: IAFM of a carrier using two different modulating frequencies (one for AM and one for FM) elicits separate AM and FM responses that are relatively independent of each other. These separate responses can be used to detect whether a particular carrier has been processed in the cochlea, but they are not as effective as measuring responses to carriers that have been modulated in both amplitude and frequency at the same modulation frequency (mixed modulation). The detectability of eight different responses (four AM and four FM) to an IAFM stimuli relates well to the ability of subjects to discriminate words. IAFM stimuli therefore show promise as an objective test for assessing suprathreshold hearing.

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.

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)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation 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 score0.797
Threshold uncertainty score0.338

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
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 head0.050
GPT teacher head0.320
Teacher spread0.270 · 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