MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2038491213 · doi:10.3109/14992027.2012.711913

The effect of stimulus choice on cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEP): Consideration of speech segment positioning within naturally produced speech

2012· article· en· W2038491213 on OpenAlexafffund
Vijayalakshmi Easwar, Danielle Glista, David W. Purcell, Susan Scollie

Bibliographic record

VenueInternational Journal of Audiology · 2012
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicNeuroscience and Music Perception
Canadian institutionsWestern UniversityLondon Health Sciences Centre
FundersOntario Ministry of Research and Innovation
KeywordsStimulus (psychology)AudiologySpeech perceptionPsychologySpeech recognitionNeurosciencePerceptionComputer scienceMedicineCognitive psychology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: Cortical auditory evoked potentials (CAEPs) can be elicited to stimuli generated from different parts of speech. The aim of this study was to compare the phoneme /ʃ/ from word medial and word initial positions and its influence on the CAEP. DESIGN: Stimuli from word medial positions were found to have shorter rise times compared to the same phonemes from word initial positions. A repeated measures design was carried out with CAEPs elicited using /ʃ/ from a word initial and a word medial position. STUDY SAMPLE: Sixteen individuals with audiometric thresholds within normal limits participated in the study. RESULTS: Stimuli /ʃ/ from a word medial position elicited CAEPs with significantly larger amplitudes and shorter latencies compared to /ʃ/ from a word initial position (p < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS: Findings from this study, incorporating naturally produced speech sounds, suggest the need to consider spectral and temporal variations when choosing stimuli to optimize the amplitude and latency characteristics of the CAEP. Overall, findings illustrate good test-retest reliability of CAEP measures using speech stimuli with clinical equipment.

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)0.003
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.025
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 score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.014

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0030.025
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.001
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0010.000
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 head0.021
GPT teacher head0.323
Teacher spread0.301 · 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

Citations10
Published2012
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueInternational Journal of AudiologySame topicNeuroscience and Music PerceptionFrench-language works237,207