MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2047498307 · doi:10.1097/aud.0b013e31827ad9d3

Acoustic Stapedius Reflex Function in Man Revisited

2013· article· en· W2047498307 on OpenAlexaff
Steven J. Aiken, Jessica N. Andrus, Manohar Bance, Dennis P. Phillips

Bibliographic record

VenueEar and Hearing · 2013
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldNeuroscience
TopicHearing Loss and Rehabilitation
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsAcoustic reflexAudiologyReflexMedicineAcousticsHearing lossPhysicsAnesthesia

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In Brief Objective: The objective of this study was to examine the role of the acoustic stapedius reflex in the protection of speech recognition from the upward spread of masking arising from low-frequency background noise. Design: Speech recognition scores were measured for nine control participants (19–34 years) and six patients with transected stapedius tendons poststapedotomy (39–57 years) as a function of the amplitude of a low-frequency masker, presented at nominal signal to noise ratios of +5 dB, –5 dB, and –15 dB. All participants had pure-tone hearing thresholds in the normal range. Continuous high-pass noise was present in all conditions to avoid ceiling effects; this reduced performance in quiet to approximately 85% for all participants. Scores were measured for soft and loud nonsense syllables (average third octave band levels of 35 and 65 dB SPL), so that a comparison of the low-frequency noise masking functions at the two levels would provide information about the effects of the reflex on speech intelligibility in noise. A third group of nine control participants (19–22 years) listened in the presence of a low-frequency masker gated to come on 1 sec before stimulus onset, to reduce the likelihood of reflex adaptation. The Speech-Intelligibility Index was used to quantify the amount of speech information available in each condition. Results: Patients with transected tendons performed more poorly than control participants as a function of Speech-Intelligibility Index in all conditions, even at levels that were too soft for reflex activation. This could be because of postsurgical differences in sensitivity, the more advanced age of poststapedotomy group, or differences in medial olivocochlear inhibition. For loud speech, patient performance fell nearly linearly with increases in the low-frequency masker, but control participants’ performance declined little as the signal to noise ratio declined from +5 to –5 dB, and then fell rapidly as the ratio declined to –15 dB. This plateau in the masking function did not occur for the patients. Masking functions obtained with the gated low-frequency masker were either highly similar or poorer to those obtained with a continuous masker, suggesting that the use of a continuous low frequency masker did not result in significant reflex adaptation. Conclusions: The stapedius reflex appears to offer some protection from the upward spread of masking of speech by background low-frequency noise at moderate levels, but not at high levels. The stapedius reflex produces level-dependent attenuation of low-frequency vibration reaching the cochlea. It has been suggested that this reduces masking of high-frequency speech energy by low-frequency speech energy at high levels, but this appears to be incorrect. An alternate hypothesis is that the reflex reduces masking by low-frequency environmental noise. The present study tested this hypothesis by measuring masking functions for speech at levels above and below reflex threshold, in control subjects and poststapedotomy patients. Results suggest that the reflex reduces the impact of low-frequency noise on speech perception at moderate but not high signal-to-noise ratios.

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)0.000
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 score0.976
Threshold uncertainty score0.184

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 head0.041
GPT teacher head0.290
Teacher spread0.249 · 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 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

Citations16
Published2013
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueEar and HearingSame topicHearing Loss and RehabilitationFrench-language works237,207